Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Non-Graduates (Teaching Appointments, England)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many third- and fourth-year non-graduate teachers have taken teaching appointments in England since 1st January, 1962.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Since 1st January, 1962, nineteen three- or four-year trained non-graduate women teachers of general subjects have left Scotland to take teaching appointments in England or Wales.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that certain categories of these third-year and fourth-year non-graduate teachers in Scotland are being paid much less than their counterparts in England? Is he aware that a third-year non-graduate teacher in Scotland receives £40 less at the minimum and £130 less at the maximum, and that a fourth-year non-graduate teacher receives £5 less at the minimum and £120 less at the maximum? In view of the unanimous recommendations of the National Joint Council, could the hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that these recommendations should now be adopted, or else we shall have more teachers, who are badly needed in Scotland, leaving for England?

Mr. Brooman-White: No, Sir. During the same period twenty teachers with similar qualifications came from England and Wales to Scotland, so on balance we are one up.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Under-Secretary regard this problem a little more seriously than he appears to be doing? Would he agree that in principle it is bad that cheap labour should flow from one side of the Border to the other, irrespective of what countries are involved? Does not he think that equal teaching standards should be aimed at on both sides of the Border, with equal salaries for these categories both in England and Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: The Question was directed to the flow of non-graduate teachers to the South. On balance, we are level in that respect. There is no evidence that any differences in salaries in these categories or others is causing much movement.

Local Authority Houses (Rents)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the Government's pay pause policy, he will circularise local authorities advising them to observe a rent pause policy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Under-Secretary think it is scandalous that in spite of the wage and salary freeze since last July, in the last few months rents have gone up by as much as 100 per cent.? There is no justifiable reason for such a policy. Is it not about time that the Government were consistent and insisted on a rent pause as long as the pay pause is in operation?

Mr. Galbraith: No, I do not think I can agree. My right hon. Friend's position is perfectly clear. It is that when there is an average rent of just over 10s. a week, which is not reasonable, any reasonable increases are perfectly justified even during the period of a pay pause.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that if rents are increased, the cost of living is increased, too, and if the cost of living is increased we get demands for increased wages? Are not the Government helping to pursue a policy of inflation and thus


worsening the economic and financial crisis of this country by increasing rents?

Mr. Galbraith: Not when the average rent is only just over 10s. a week.

Regional Crime Squad

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now discuss with Scottish chief constables the desirability of establishing a regional crime squad, which could be made available to any police force in Scotland on request.

Mr. Brooman-White: As the hon. Member knows, one such squad operates in the west of Scotland and less formal arrangements for co-operation between forces operate from time to time in other areas. I think that any extension of these arrangements is best left to chief constables to arrange among themselves.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it is not wise to dither with a necessity of this nature? Does he realise that the criminal mind is adapted to the techniques of the space age at present, whereas we are still influenced by the parish pump outlook in relation to criminal detection? Does he not think that it would be an advantage for Scotland to have its own Scotland Yard so that the cream of Scotland can be available for crime detection?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that Scotland Yard in England can move in only at the request of a local force. If local forces in Scotland make such a request they can receive assistance.

Students (National Insurance Contributions)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision the Government have taken on the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that full-time students in receipt of approved awards should be covered for National Insurance contributions.

Mr. Brooman-White: This recommendation was carefully considered by the Government when the Anderson Report was received, but it was decided not to accept it.

Mr. Thomson: Is it not unfair that students under 18 should be exempted while students over 18 should have either to pay these contributions or pay heavy arrears when they finally cease their education? In view of the need to encourage people to go on to higher education, would not the Government reconsider this matter?

Mr. Brooman-White: Students' grants have always been calculated on the basis of meeting necessary expenses during the course of study and not of providing for future contingencies. It was felt that in these circumstances the arrangements which have been made on the basis of the Anderson recommendations were fair.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Toothill Report on the Scottish economy, he will now take steps to increase the grants available to local authorities for the clearing of derelict sites.

Mr. Galbraith: The Committee's recommendation about derelict site grants is being studied. Meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 7th March, a fair number of schemes have been submitted on the present basis.

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State also said that the applications were not coming in as fast as he had hoped, and does he not recognise that this question is given increased urgency in view of the grim news which has come out only this morning about the imminent closures of North British and the shale mining industry? Will he not take much more urgent steps to encourage local authorities to clear up derelict sites in order to get industries to take the places of those whose closures are now on us?

Mr. Galbraith: Certainly we are most anxious to clear up these derelict sites but at the moment I think that we should wait till we have considered the recommendations of the Toothill Committee.

Mr. Hoy: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter of great urgency in view of the news announced


in this morning's paper that 2,500 men are to be out of work in Scotland with two closures? Does not he realise that it is absolutely essential, if we are to have greater employment for these people in Scotland in future, that sites should become available, and that it is up to the Scottish Office to get a move on in the matter?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hamilton: Is not the hon. Gentleman going to give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy)? Does not he regard this as being a question of the most fundamental importance to the Scottish economy? Why does he just sit there and refuse to answer the supplementary question?

Mr. Galbraith: I told the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to have these sites cleared. I also told him that we were waiting while we studied the recommendations of the Toothill Committee. I am not prepared to go further than that at the moment.

Industrial Production

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the rate of increase of industrial production in 1961; and how this figure compares with that for England and Wales.

Mr. Brooman-White: According to the present provisional figures industrial production in 1961 exceeded that of 1960 by almost two per cent. in Scotland and by just over 1 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the record of industrial productivity in Scotland is rather worse than that in England and Wales, and if it should happen that the rate of growth in Scotland is less than 2½ per cent. will the Chancellor's policy on wages still apply? In other words, if industrial productivity in Scotland rises by 1 per cent. will the workers of Scotland still get their 2½ per cent. increase in wages?

Mr. Brooman-White: We should obviously like to see a still more rapid expansion of industrial production in Scotland, but the figures for last year showed that Scotland did substantially

better than the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: But the overall figure was very poor, and if it is less than 2½ per cent. do the Government then intend to tie the wages to the low productivity which is the result of the Government's policy?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Brooman-White: Clearly, we should like the industrial productivity to increase still further, but it is a matter of satisfaction in Scotland, I think, that during the last year our figures were better than the United Kingdom total.

Housing (Immigrants)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, with a view to introducing legislation to give priority to Scottish-born citizens on local authority housing lists, he will ask local authorities for the number of immigrants who have been given priority over Scottish people who have been waiting for many years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that Scottish Members are always insisting on fair shares for Scotland under the Goschen formula of eleven-eightieths—

Mr. Ross: What does the hon. Member know about Scotland?

Sir C. Osborne: —will my hon. Friend see that Scotland gets its fair share of the immigrants and that 10,000 are sent to Dundee, whose Members opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that that supplementary question really follows from the original Question.

Sir C. Osborne: Oh, yes, it does.

Miss Herbison: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that no attention whatever is paid to the disgraceful pleas made by his hon. Friend behind him? Is he aware that if we had jobs in Scotland there would not be any doubt about it and that a great welcome would be given to these immigrants in our country,


where we are one of the most friendly peoples in the world?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hamilton: When are we going to have some answers?

Glasgow-Kilmarnock Road

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total amount so far spent on the development of the Glasgow-Kilmarnock road between Eastwood Toll and Mallets-heugh, and the sums paid to house-owners in the same area as compensation.

Mr. Brooman-White: The total amount spent so far is £607,000. This includes £37,000 paid for land and in compensation to 99 out of the total of 192 owners and occupiers concerned; the settlements in respect of the remainder have still to be completed.

Mr. Rankin: While, of course, I agree with the compensation and I also agree that a splendid job is being made of this development between Eastwood Toll and Malletsheugh, will the hon. Gentleman realise that exactly the same problem as faced him on the new Kilmarnock Road faces him on the old Kilmarnock Road which runs parallel to it and a little distance from it because of the increase of the number of feuars. They are being allowed to approach too near the centre of the road? Once again, is he aware that he will have to pay compensation to these feuars comparable to that already paid on the present new road—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—unless he takes some action now?

Mr. Brooman-White: The question—

Mr. Nabarro: Parish pump stuff.

Mr. Brooman-White: —of compensation is, of course, a matter for the district valuer.

Mr. Rankin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am terribly sorry—

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is awake today.

Mr. Rankin: —but owing to an unseemly and ignorant interruption I did not hear all of that answer. May the hon. Gentleman repeat it?

Mr. Brooman-White: I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member. I said that this question of compensation is, of course, a matter for the district valuer.

Mr. Nabarro: Parish council stuff.

Probation Officers

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of probation officers in Scotland; and how far this number is short of establishment.

Mr. Brooman-White: At the end of 1961 there were 164 persons—including 29 women—in whole-time service as probation officers in Scotland. Local shortages have generally been of a temporary nature. My right hon. Friend is considering the implications of the Morison Report on the future of the service.

Mr. Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the staffing of this service is very satisfactory in Scotland and that it does a good job of work? Could he say a little further about the Departmental Committee and what action he proposes to take over their salaries for the future?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that any answer to that will have to wait till we have had time to consider the very wide-ranging recommendations of the Morison Committee.

Mrs. Hart: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while, of course, many of us on this side of the House agree with what the hon. Member has just said about the excellent work being done by the probation officers' service in Scotland, nevertheless many jobs and tasks are being carried out in England and Wales by probation officers which are not done in Scotland and that in fact the shortage reflected in the Morison Report conceals the fact that there is a great scope for increasing probation work in Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are considering the whole problem in its widest aspects.

Hospitals (Maternity Beds)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of maternity beds deficient


in each hospital region at present on the basis of the minimum requirements of the Montgomery Report; and what are the numbers that will be deficient in each hospital region assuming the hospital building programme, 1961 to 1966 is realised on schedule.

Mr. Galbraith: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Mabon: May I ask the Minister if his Answer departs substantially from what has been published in the Hospital Plan for Scotland? If it does not, will he consider looking again at the priorities because, even with the present

MATERNITY BEDS—SCOTLAND


AT 30TH SEPTEMBER, 1961


—
Bed complement
Beds required*
Deficiency
Surplus


Western
…
…
1,653
2,037
384
—


South-Eastern
…
…
662
762
100
—


Eastern
…
…
207
317
110
—


North-Eastern
…
…
344
330
—
14


Northern
…
…
121
130
9
—



2,987
3,576
603
14



Net deficiency
 589

ON COMPLETION OF 1961–66 PROGRAMME


—
Bed complement†
Beds required‡
Deficiency
Surplus


Western
…
…
2,185
2,095
—
90


South-Eastern
…
…
662
819
157
—


Eastern
…
…
255
319
64
—


North-Eastern
…
…
344
326
—
18


Northern
…
…
150
129
—
21



3,596
3,688
221
129



Net deficiency
 92


*The Montgomery Report recommended that beds should be available for a stay in hospital of 10 days for at least 70 per cent. of total births. For planning purposes, owing to unreliability of estimates of births, this has been converted into the equivalent figure of 0·69 beds per 1,000 population.


† Account is taken of closures and improved bed spacing.


‡ The calculations in this column relate to an estimated population in 1968.

Fatal Road Accidents

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal road accidents took place in Scotland in 1961; and what increase this represents on the previous year.

Mr. Brooman-White: There were 671 fatalities in 1961; 23 more than in 1960.

programme, there will be a very long time, almost fifteen years, before the Montgomery Report is fully implemented, particularly in the western region of Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: My information is that it ought to be practically implemented within the five-year period.

Mrs. Cullen: Will the Minister tell us how many of the eighty maternity beds promised in 1960 and again in 1961 are now available?

Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid that I cannot answer that detailed supplementary question without notice.

Following are the figures:

Mr. Brewis: Does not this represent an upward trend, compared with England and Wales in the same period? Is my hon. Friend aware that in England and Wales there are 750 road safety officers and in Scotland only eight? Would he not agree on the importance of providing such officers to give lectures in the schools to the children, and


other lectures, in order to prevent road accidents?

Mr. Brooman-White: I should like to consider the point about the road safety officers. Of course, we are concerned that they should be increased; but to set the figures in proportion, there has been a very substantial rise in the number of vehicles on the roads.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that we are going to have this problem very much worsened by the closure of branch lines and main line stations and the withdrawal of hundreds of trains, thus causing more traffic to go on to the roads and causing a greater number of accidents and greater loss of life every year? Will he consider this in any arrangements he is making for road safety in future?

Mr. Brooman-White: I will certainly consider anything, for the improvement of road safety.

Mr. Ross: It would cost money.

Sir C. Osborne: English money.

Rankin Memorial Hospital, Greenock

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when additional maternity beds will be available in Rankin Memorial Hospital, Greenock.

Mr. Galbraith: As indicated in the White Paper Hospital Plan for Scotland, the Western Regional Hospital Board hopes to be able to start this scheme in the period up to 1965. It will announce the actual date when it is able to do so.

Dr. Mabon: Is the Minister aware that not long ago he gave me an Answer saying that this hospital would be provided for in the financial year 1962–63? May I ask when this hospital will actually be built?

Mr. Galbraith: All that I can say is that the regional hospital board intends to start the scheme in the period up to 1965.

South of Scotland Electricity Board (Finance)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the nature of the consultations he had with the

South of Scotland Electricity Board prior to his setting the financial objectives of the Board for the next five years.

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will state the total net surplus set by him as the financial objective of the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the five years 1962 to 1966 inclusive, the increase this represents over the actual net surplus for the five years to 1961, and the amount that this increase represents per electricity consumer in the Board's area;
(2) what estimate he made of the price increases which will have to be borne by consumers in the area of the South of Scotland Electricity Board when determining the new financial objectives which he has set for the Board.

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Electricity Consultative Council for the South of Scotland District regarding the financial objectives of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and their effect on consumer prices.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend's consultations with the South of Scotland Electricity Board were by correspondence and were concerned with the level of financial return for the next five years and the Board's proposals for achieving this. The objective agreed will enable the Board to finance from revenue more than 50 per cent. of its capital requirements. It was appreciated that to achieve this objective as well as to meet various increases in costs a rise of about 10 per cent. in the Board's revenue would be necessary. The financial objective is not related to the net surplus but to the gross earnings. It is estimated that to meet this the Board's income must exceed its expenditure on revenue account by about £22 million over the five-year period compared with £1½ million during the five years 1957 to 1961. The Board referred the proposed increases to the Consultative Council and it agreed with them. My right hon. Friend had no discussions with the Council, as it is not one of its functions to advise the Secretary of State about tariff increases.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman used the word "agreed". Is he aware that


a cursory reading of the Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board demonstrates, first, that it considers that it is achieving its aim in getting cheap electricity on a sound financial framework; and, secondly, that far from this being an agreed objective it has been one dictated by the Government which has compelled the Board to raise revenue up to about £6 million by raising its tariffs purely to meet the arbitrary figure of 12½ per cent. on net capital laid down by the Government against the judgment of the Electricity Board?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the contributions from revenue are needed to carry on the Board's business and to finance the development which the Board must undertake in the future if it is to meet consumer needs.

Mr. Ross: Was it agreed or imposed?

Mr. Millan: Whatever the long-term view may be, do the Government think that this is a suitable time, with the wage pause and appeals to industry to keep costs down, to impose a 10 per cent. increase in electricity prices in Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: In answer to both supplementary questions, I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) misunderstood. I said that the Consultative Committee agreed with the Board's proposals. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the general position is that it is impossible to distinguish on the figures available between any increases necessarily incurred by price and cost changes and those resulting from the point in the White Paper about the necessity for improved financial arrangements being made by the Board in the future.

Mr. Steele: As this is in line with the Government's policy to ensure that the Board should be able to be more self-financing than in the past, can the Under-Secretary say what percentage of self-financing was done by the Board in the first period and what is the percentage that it is expected to have in the next five-year period? Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether the Secretary of State or the Board asked the Consultative Committee to look at this

and whether it was agreed that a higher percentage should go on domestic tariffs than on industrial tariffs?

Mr. Brooman-White: I cannot answer these detailed points without notice. On the question of capital requirements of the Board, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the comments in the White Paper. I think that the relevant paragraphs are 14, 15 and 16.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that all these matters of self-financing of electricity boards in Scotland are properly the subject of inquiry by the Mackenzie Committee at the present time?—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Oh, yes—and should not hon. Members opposite be invited to give evidence to the Mackenzie Committee in the same fashion that I have already given evidence myself?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Nabarro: May I have an answer first?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: There seems to be a suggestion on the part of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that some limitation is automatically placed on the rights of hon. Members to ask Questions of this kind because a Committee is sitting. Is this equivalent to it being sub judice in the legal sense? This is an important point. The hon. Member has suggested that hon. Members have no right to ask these Questions while the Mackenzie Committee is sitting.

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is one. I do not think that we need bother about views of that kind expressed by hon. Members. I do not think they raise a point of order.

Mr. Brooman-White: It is true that the Mackenzie Committee is inquiring into the finances of electricity in Scotland. I entirely accept everything that my hon. Friend has said about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members would listen to what I am saying. I accept that point. The question that I was answering was with reference


to increased charges by the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

Mr. Strachey: What justification can the Under-Secretary give the House for this whole doctrine that this body must raise its capital for development out of revenue and not borrow it like other undertakings, public and private?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the justifications are contained in the White Paper.

Mr. Ross: Would the hon. Gentleman answer a very simple question: was the financial objective imposed upon the Board or was it agreed?

Mr. Brooman-White: There were consultations with the Board and the Board accepted the necessity to make the necessary changes.

Mr. Ross: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Civil Defence (Dispersal of Population)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the rate of house building and school building in the areas designated as reception areas under his dispersal plans; and if he proposes to give additional subsidies to local authorities in the areas to provide accommodation for the additional population.

Mr. Galbraith: No special steps are being taken, and no additional subsidies are proposed because of designation under the dispersal scheme.

Mr. Hughes: If the Minister has plans for dispersing the population to areas which are already overcrowded, does not he think that he should make some provision?

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. I do not think so. It is perfectly obvious that in an emergency we will have to put up with conditions which perhaps are not those which we should like to have in ordinary times.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the towns of Ayr and Prestwick and the towns on the Firth of Clyde have

been designated as neutral or reception areas under the new plans for the dispersal of the population in the event of nuclear war.

Mr. Galbraith: The towns of Ayr and Prestwick and the other towns on the Ayrshire coast have been designated as reception areas. Cove and Kilcreg-gan, Dunoon, Gourock and Rothesay are neutral areas.

Mr. Hughes: When the Polaris submarine base came to Dunoon we were told by the commander of the "Proteus" that Dunoon was perfectly safe. Can the Minister tell us why the Government do not now regard Dunoon as such a safe area, and also will he tell us why he is proposing to make Prestwick a reception area when it is one of the most important American bases in Britain?

Mr. Galbraith: The intention is to disperse people from the large industrial areas. I think that the coast of Ayr, near which I live myself, is completely safe.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Minister tell the House why his right hon. Friend who, apparently, is pledged to a policy of dispersal—though we cannot see how it is to take place—is retaining all the shelters in tenement properties in the densely populated areas in Glasgow?

Mr. Galbraith: It is unlikely that all the population will be dispersed.

Mrs. Hart: Can the Minister say whether this is a new policy of civil defence which we are hearing about today, and whether a place which provides a number one target should be designated as a reception area? If so, will the hon. Gentleman offer some advice to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about designating air bases in the Norfolk area as reception areas also?

Mr. Galbraith: I should like to look into that point.

Hunterston Nuclear Power Station

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the construction of the Hunterston nuclear power station.

Mr. Brooman-White: Work is in progress on the first reactor which is expected to be in commission by the middle of 1964. It is hoped to be able to commission the second reactor by the end of that year.

Mr. Hannan: Since the contractors were allowed an extension of time because of labour difficulties, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the delays are not wholly the result of labour troubles? As the Board will be involved in high interest rates for the period because of this extra time, why should it be penalised in the fashion referred to earlier?

Mr. Brooman-White: Not only labour difficulties but other considerations led to delays in construction. The hon. Member will have noted the comments made about this in the last day or two by the Chairman of the Board.

New Towns (School Building)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional assistance he proposes giving education authorities for the building of schools in new towns.

Mr. Brooman-White: Loan charges in respect of school building in new towns, as elsewhere, are relevant expenditure for purposes of general grant. My right hon. Friend will, before next Session, consider, in consultation with the local authority associations, suggestions that have been made for amending the formula for the distribution of general grant.

Mr. Lawson: Since it has been found necessary to give special treatment to new towns in respect of many services, for example, houses, in view of the large number of young children in proportion to the population, and because many of these children for whom schools will have to be found in the new towns are living in areas now in receipt of grants for them, will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that there are some factors which make it necessary for new towns to be given special consideration to meet financial difficulties?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are well aware of the problems which have arisen

and they will be carefully considered in the review.

Miss Herbison: Does the Minister believe that he will get the agreement of local authorities on these discussions and that the new town areas will be given something special in the general grant? Does not he realise that there will be great difficulty about getting agreement and that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities which have new towns in their areas do not penalise the rest of the area because they have to provide new schools in the new towns?

Mr. Brooman-White: As I have said, we are well aware of the problems. It would be most unwise for me to speculate on what will or will not be agreed by the local authorities. We should like to reach some arrangement to meet the problem.

Fintry Housing Estate, Dundee (Repairs)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking respecting the Scottish Special Housing Association houses on the Fintry housing estate, Dundee, where major repairs have been shown to be necessary.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has asked the Association for a full report as soon as possible, and to keep him closely informed of events. At the same time, the Association proposes to put in hand forthwith permanent remedial work and has been in touch with the tenants and the Town Council of Dundee to explain the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the gravity of this matter, once the Secretary of State has received this technical report, will he consider holding a full public inquiry, as was done in the similar case in respect of Hatfield new town in England? Meantime, will the Minister encourage the S.S.H.A. to give every possible help to the tenants in the problems with which they are faced through this disaster?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is very sympathetic towards the tenants and will certainly do that. We


had better wait, however, until we see what is contained in the technical report.

Barlinnie Prison (Incidents)

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of further incidents at Barlinnie Prison this week-end, he will reconsider his decision about an independent inquiry.

Mr. Brooman-White: These further assaults are most regrettable. They are being investigated by the police in consultation with the Governor, and my right hon. Friend will continue to watch the position closely.

Mrs. Cullen: Is the Minister aware that there have been two other incidents during the week-end, which proves that the investigations at Barlinnie Prison have not been successful? Will he reconsider his decision about an inquiry.

Mr. Brooman-White: We are most concerned about what has happened over the week-end, but it is not certain that any inquiry would add to the evidence produced by the police investigation. My right hon. Friend will do whatever seems practicable to prevent a continuance of this state of affairs.

Mr. Hannan: When will the Minister face the problem? Even if it were agreed to hold an inquiry, is not the solution to the problem quite obvious? Is not Barlinnie Prison overcrowded and is not there a need for more accommodation? Will the Minister address himself to that problem and get on with the job?

Mr. Brooman-White: Overcrowding is certainly one of the causes of the difficulties which have arisen. We hope that the new remand facilities which will become available in the summer will ease the strain.

Mrs. Cullen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Ibrox Park (Disorder)

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Glasgow following the riot and disorder

at Ibrox Park on Saturday 31st March; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend has called for a report and when it is received he will consider if there is any further action which can usefully be taken.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern throughout Scotland at the shocking behaviour of the supporters of the football club who created a riot at Ibrox Park on Saturday last? If the magistrates at Glasgow fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to this type of outbreak of violence at football matches, will the Secretary of State take the necessary steps to stop this unseemly conduct by football supporters?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Not on your life.

Mr. Brooman-White: The courts have considerable powers to impose sentences for this type of outbreak and we all deplore the fact that the actions of a few hooligans should have given such an unnecessarily unfavourable impression of Glasgow sportsmanship.

Mr. McInnes: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that, in conjunction with the Lord Advocate, he may consider the possibility of sending such culprits to the High Court where more severe sentences may be imposed?

Mr. Brooman-White: I understand that it is the normal practice for such offenders to be tried summarily by the sheriff who can award a fine of £25 or a sentence of imprisonment for three months.

Education

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of money was spent on education in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available; and what percentage increase this represents over 1951–52 after adjustment for changes in the value of money.

Mr. Brooman-White: The total spent by education authorities from revenue and by the Scottish Education Department in 1960–61 was about £90 million, an increase of about 60 per cent. over the cost in 1951–52, after adjustment for changes in the value of money.

General Dental Services

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the general dental services provided for Scotland are brought up to the standard of those provided in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not accept that the standard of general dental services provided in Scotland is lower than in comparable parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member has evidence to that effect perhaps he will let me have it.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence lies in his hands now—that the Report which contains the evidence was presented to him in December of last year? When does he propose to make it available? Is he aware that if we take one dental service as an example, orthodontics, and allow for the disparity in the size of the populations, the amount spent on orthodontic treatment in Scotland in the last three years was £28,000 compared with over £1 million spent in England? Does not that show that a narrower approach is made to the service in Scotland than in England?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman asked about the standards of the general dental services. I think that they are comparable with the rest of the United Kingdom.

School Building Programme, Ross and Cromarty

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the school building programme of Ross and Cromarty County Council has fallen several years in arrears, especially in the island of Lewis; and what action he has taken to assist the county council to speed up the programme and create a special schools architects' department since the hon. Member for the Western Isles wrote to him last September.

Mr. Brooman-White: I am aware that Ross and Cromarty has fallen behind its former school building programme. The education authority has now, however, undertaken a comprehensive review of its schools and is framing a new building

programme, based on a fresh appraisal both of educational priorities and of the availability of contractors. It is also considering the question of additional architectural assistance, A meeting will shortly take place between my Department and the education authority to discuss how best to carry through the programme.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that some of the school building schemes in the 1958 programme have not yet even been started, that there is no hope of the 1963 phase being completed in scheduled time and that only five schools a year are being reconstructed, although there are 119 schemes of relatively major reconstruction necessary? Does he not think that something should be done in the way of a crash programme now? Will he bring pressure on this local authority which clearly has failed in its statutory duties?

Mr. Brooman-White: We have been concerned about the lack of progress for some time, but I am glad that this local authority has revised its programme and decided to discuss it with us.

Mr. MacMillan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman in particular to have regard to the ancillary programme of permanent canteens and to take into account through his Department that in the last five years this county council failed to take up 100 per cent. grants for permanent school canteens worth nearly £160,000 in an area where there is heavy unemployment and gross overcrowding in the schools?

Mr. Brooman-White: We will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Moorland Areas, Western Isles (Reseeding Schemes)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the successful regeneration by crofters in the Western Isles of extensive areas of moorland; whether he intends to assist further the reseeding schemes; and what grant-aid he is making available for the essential third-year phase of maintenance to prevent the reseeded land reverting to bog.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has been greatly


impressed by the considerable regeneration of common grazings and other croft land in Lewis, and elsewhere in the highlands and islands. Further proposals of this kind will be sympathetically considered by the Crofters' Commission. The assistance given for such schemes is directed towards the initial improvement, and not to subsequent maintenance of the improvement, and my right hon. Friend considers that the present arrangements adequately serve this purpose.

Mr. MacMillan: While we all endorse the compliments to the crofters concerned, who by their own hard labour and a good deal of their own money have regenerated many thousands of acres of what formerly was bog land and turned it into excellent pasture and increased the number and improved the quality of livestock, may I ask why the Government have now abandoned what is regarded as the essential third-year consolidation phase when basic slag must be applied to the ground if we are to hold progress made in the reseeding programme? Let us not abandon the whole thing for a miserable economy for which the crofters will have to pay out of their own pockets.

Mr. Leburn: There is no question of abandonment. I think that the hon. Member does less than justice to these crofters, by whose enterprise this work has been done. I think it will be carried on. Maintenance is not only a question of the third-year maintenance but is required in the fourth year, the fifth year and so on.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend see that these schemes are expanded and that the good work that has been done is not lost, because it is important to maintain the quality of the land which has been reclaimed?

Mr. Leburn: Every encouragement is being given to these schemes.

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Gentleman said that maintenance and consolidation in the fourth year and onwards is essential. Surely it is even more essential in the third year? Is it not a fact that crofters will have to find £500 or £600 for each 200 acres in addition to what they have contributed by their labour and their own money? Does not he think that unfair?

Mr. Leburn: Yes, but it should be borne in mind that these grants are running up to £14 an acre for the initial improvement.

Places of Public Entertainment (Smoking)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the recent reports on smoking and lung cancer, he will call a conference of local health authorities with a view to recommending a ban on smoking in places of public entertainment.

Mr. Galbraith: Wider restriction of smoking in public places was one of the recommendations in the recent Report from the Royal College of Physicians which are now under consideration by the Government.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of his colleagues to the well-known fact that example is better than precept? If the Government as a whole announced to the public that they were stopping smoking, does he not think that that might have a great effect on the country?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can link the Government with "places of public entertainment".

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

South-West Durham

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the closure of railways in south-west Durham, what major road developments he proposes in their place; what they are; and when they will be started.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): No trunk roads are affected and we have received no proposals for major improvements of any classified roads as a direct result of these closures.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the fact that unemployment has mounted every month this year and jobs stay firmly stuck in the pipeline, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be sensible to advance some of the road schemes in this area until the jobs get out of the pipeline? Will he take steps


with the county council to see that this happens?

Mr. Hay: No, I do not see the connection between road improvements and jobs.

Mr. Mellish: If branch lines close and more traffic must go on to the roads, is it not a fair question to ask if the Government have a policy in circumstances of this kind to give special priorities to roads like this which will have to take the traffic which formerly went on the railways? It is as straight as that.

Mr. Hay: If it were as straight as that it would be comparatively simple, but the plain fact is that these roads are not where the services have been before.

Great Barr Road Scheme, Oldbury

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position of the proposed Great Barr special road scheme within the borough of Oldbury; and when road operations will begin.

Mr. Hay: A draft scheme under Section 11 of the Highways Act, 1959, published on 4th March, 1960, showed this road running on viaduct over the railway for about two miles in the Borough of Oldbury. Some seventy objections were received to this part of the scheme. Detailed examination of the line has shown that it would involve substantial demolition of property and cause serious overshadowing. We are therefore investigating, in collaboration with the local authority, an alternative line to the west of the railway which seems less likely to affect homes and property. It is too early to say when road building might begin.

Traffic Routes, West Midlands (Lighting)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now considered the recommendations of the consultative committee on the lighting of traffic routes within the London conurbation; and if he will take the initiative in setting up a similar committee for the West Midland conurbation.

Mr. Hay: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon.

Member to the Answer I gave on 24th January to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). As to the second part, it was the lighting authorities who set up the London Committee. We should welcome any similar initiative by the authorities in the West Midland conurbation, or elsewhere, and would be glad to give them any assistance, advice or help that we can.

Public Conveniences, Bus and Coach Stations (Turnstiles)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Transport what answer he has sent to the National Council of Women's request for his assistance in securing the removal of turnstiles from public conveniences at bus and coach stations.

Mr. Hay: On 5th February my right hon. Friend told the National Council that he was drawing the attention of the nationalised and private bus operators to the Government's view, as expressed to local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and that he was suggesting that they too should pursue the course we had urged on local authorities.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend for the action he has taken in this matter, which the women very much appreciate, may I ask what reply has been received from the bus and coach undertakings? Will the Minister point out to them that it is even more inconvenient to have these turnstiles at transport centres than in ordinary public conveniences and that unless they take steps to fall into line with Government policy someone will have to introduce another Private Member's Bill to compel them to do so.

Mr. Hay: I am afraid that without notice I could not give the hon. Lady the answers we have had from the various undertakings to whom we addressed this request. We shall certainly bear in mind what she said in the latter part of her supplementary question.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In conversations with the bus companies, will my hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that one of the bus companies at Basingstoke is putting up a new turnstile in this very day and age at a new station?

Mrs. Castle: Shame.

Deaths

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport how many deaths there were on the roads in 1931, 1941, 1951 and 1961; and what were the ratios of deaths to vehicles in the same years.

Mr. Hay: The number of deaths are as follows: 1931, 6,691; 1941, 9,169; 1951, 5,250; 1961, 6,908.
Deaths per thousand licensed motor vehicles were: 1931, 3·0; 1941, 3·8; 1951, 1·2; 1961, 0·7.

Sir J. Duncan: In view of those very encouraging figures, will my hon. Friend cease harrying motorists and creating further legal penalties against motorists the whole time and adopt a different psychological approach by saying that the motorist is doing very well and try to jolly him along to do better?

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend ought not to draw too many conclusions from these figures. I should be delighted if those conclusions could be drawn, but the figures do not necessarily indicate as good a result as might appear on the face of them. I must resist any suggestion that my right hon. Friend or the Department harasses the motorist. We have this acute accident problem in this country with which we have to deal, and all methods open to us must be pursued simultaneously.

Mr. Holt: Does not the Minister agree that the number of deaths on the roads is still appalling, in spite of the percentage figures which he has given? Does he not agree that the greatest contributoin which he could make to solving the problem is the segregation of traffic and an improvement in the road system? When will the Government get on with a road programme adequate to the needs of the day?

Mr. Hay: We are quite satisfied with the road programme as it stands at the moment. It is the largest ever known in the history of this country. My right hon. Friend has been pertinacious in pushing traffic measures forward as quickly as he can.

Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend amplify a little his statment that the figures are misleading? Why are they misleading?

Mr. Hay: I did not say that they were misleading. I said that we ought not to draw too many conclusions from them. The reasons for that is that the comparisons made, for example, make no allowances for the actual distance travelled. The figures do not make adequate allowance for the exposure to risk of all the separate classes of road user involved, and they take no account of the improvement in the medical services since 1931. These are some of the points involved.

Mr. Mellish: To put the picture in its right perspective, is it not correct that while the figure for deaths has remained fairly consistent since 1931, the numbers of seriously injured or injured in a minor way have risen alarmingly since that time? Is not this not one of the most frightful aspects of the tragedy on the roads today?

Mr. Hay: We have never sought to minimise the road accident problem. All I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), was that he should not draw too many conclusions from the figures.

Sir G. Nicholson: Would not a great contribution be made by some measure making more uniform the application of the law? Is it not misleading to motorists and a cause of increased danger that the law is applied and administered differently in almost every area?

Mr. Hay: Questions on the administration of the law are not for my right hon. Friend.

North Ferriby Bypass

Mr. Coulson: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to speed up the completion of the North Ferriby bypass.

Mr. Hay: The North Ferriby bypass has been open to traffic since August, 1961. The new dual carriageways immediately to the east as far as the Hessle bypass were opened to traffic last Friday. The improvement westwards from North Ferriby bypass to Welton should be completed by the end of this year.

Mr. Coulson: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply and his confirmation of the completion date, may


I ask whether he is aware that after recent fatal accidents on the Ferriby bypass the local coroner had something to say about the great danger to road users of temporary diversions? Will he issue instructions to all local authorities and contractors concerned in constructing new roads to exercise particular care in the marking of obstacles, particularly at night and in fog?

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I take note of what my hon. Friend said. We have very good contacts with the contractors who carry out these road schemes and there is something of a code which we have established with them. But I will see that this particular case is looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Closures

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the piecemeal closure of railway lines and services and the consequent difficulties created in planning industrial development, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to publish its railway closure plans for the next three years.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We do not think that a useful purpose would be served by such a direction at the present time; but Clause 55 of the Transport Bill would seem to cover what the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Boyden: If Clause 55 is suitable, why has the hon. Gentleman not done this at once? Has he not read the report of his own central committee which says that this is embarrassing to local planning authorities? It must be just as embarrassing to industrialists in the area.

Mr. Hay: We have done something. We have put Clause 55 in the Transport Bill and got that Bill through with one sitting less than we thought we should need under the Guillotine.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the House to understand from the Minister's reply that in future when closures of branch lines are suggested by the Railways Board the Minister himself will give an assurance that he will take the social

consequences into consideration before he finally approves such closures?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir, not necessarily. The transport users' consultative committees take all these matters into consideration. As the hon. Member knows, they report to my right hon. Friend on these matters. He therefore has these matters before him.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister referred to the change which is to take place under Clause 55 of the new Bill, and with that I agree. It would appear that under that Clause the Minister will have considerably more powers than he had previously. Will he not be expected to use those powers which he has not had previously?

Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Member's memory is at fault. He had better study Clause 55 again.

Orpington-London Services

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Transport what recommendations he has received from the Central Transport Consultative Committee regarding delays and overcrowding on the trains from Orpington to Cannon Street and Charing Cross; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Hay: None, Sir. I am told that the Consultative Committee for the London area have already decided to study passenger travel on the southeastern suburban lines of the Southern Region.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the Minister bear in mind, particularly in view of the reports which appeared in the evening papers yesterday to the effect that the Southern Region can foresee no improvement in the facilities over months or years to come, that much could be done without any improvement in the frequency but in the way of ensuring that trains have the correct number of cars on them and that the continual points failures to which we are subjected do not result in all these delays? Is he aware that it took me fifty minutes to get from Orpington to London Bridge yesterday?

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Holt: And a good one.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that there is very much to be done, apart from any improvement in the frequency of the services, to lessen the annoyance and irritation to passengers? —[Interruption.]

Mr. Fernyhough: Take your licking like men.

Mr. Speaker: Order, The profitability of Question Time is much increased if the Question is able to be heard.

Mr. Lubbock: There is much to be done to lessen the irritation and annoyance caused to passengers by delays, cancellations and overcrowding.

Mr. Hay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study what I said in my original Answer. Perhaps I may also tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is not responsible for matters of day-to-day management of the railways. Therefore, much as I regret to hear the information that he has now given to the House, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my hon. Friend note that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) draws attention to the overcrowding of the trains from Orpington? Does my hon. Friend think that there is a mass migration of residents from Orpington in the face of the Liberal menace?

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that on the Southern Region, which is by and large a very efficient part of the railway service, one of the biggest problems is the number of people trying to get on to the trains between the fatal hours of about 8.30 to 9.30? Will he ask the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to do what he can, as the rest of us have been trying to do for a long while, to persuade employers to stagger the travel hours of their employees, with a view to having a more equitable service so that we can all travel in a little comfort?

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend and myself have frequently told the House how desirable it would be if travel hours could be staggered. We have done all we can to try to draw this to the attention of employers and employees. I

should be very glad if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) would raise this matter in his own constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Lifeboats, Devon and Cornwall (Harbour Facilities)

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will ask for reports from coastguards stationed on the Atlantic coast of Devon and Cornwall as to the number of distress signals and requests for assistance received by them, during gale conditions of force 8 winds and above, during the past six months and on the action taken to meet such requests, including calls for help sent to lifeboat stations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): There were four such occasions. Lifeboats were launched in three cases, but the ships were able to proceed without help. In the fourth, a tug was sent out to tow a vessel with engine trouble. There were also six occasions in the period when the Coastguard were asked for information about vessels overdue.

Mr. Browne: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that we have some good and powerful and very well-manned lifeboats on the West Coast, particularly, at Padstow and Appledore? Is he aware that there is difficulty in that these boats are unable to get across the bars at very low water in gale-force conditions? Does he not think that it would be a good plan for his Department to look at the possibility of building some sort of harbour which would shelter a large boat, an additional boat for life-saving, in this part of the world?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That supplementary question anticipates the next Question but one on the Order Paper. But I would point out that my right hon. Friend has no request of this nature before him at present from the Royal National Life-boat Institution.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Transport if he will ask for reports from coastguards stationed on the Atlantic coast of Cornwall as to the number of distress signals and requests


for assistance received by them during gale conditions of force eight winds and above during the past six months, and on the action taken to meet such requests including calls for help sent to lifeboat stations.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should have stated that I was answering this Question with Question No. 37. The Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is the same.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware, following the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), that the position on the Cornish coast is similar to that in North Devon, in that at low water and high gales there is no way by which lifeboats can get in? Is he satisfied with this situation? What steps is he prepared to take, or is the Life-boat Institution taking, to do something about it?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can only repeat that there is no outstanding request for facilities of this nature from the Royal Life-boat Institution. Such requests would come to my right hon. Friend as they would have to seek his permission for improvements.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is there on the whole of the North Atlantic coast in Cornwall a harbour into which a boat can get in rough weather? Has my hon. Friend asked whether the Life-boat Institution is happy about it?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have no reason to think that the Lifeboat Institution is not happy about it. We have had no request of this nature. I should not like to answer that question in detail without notice.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Life-boat Institution has

had this matter very much in mind for some time past, especially in view of the silting up of the Padstow Harbour, and that we are making prolonged research into the possibility of building a new lifeboat station, but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend agrees that we cannot say anything about this until we have made exhaustive inquiries into whether the site which we propose is the right one?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of that.

Coastguard Service, Devon and Cornwall

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving harbour facilities for the Coastguard Service on the Atlantic coast of Devon and Cornwall.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Her Majesty's Coastguard does not operate any craft and the question of improving harbour facilities for the Coastguard Service does not therefore arise.

Mr. Thorpe: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a great shortage of harbour facilities on the west coast? Notwithstanding the fact that the Royal National Life-boat Institution apparently has some diffidence in having its views made public, do not the Government think that they have a responsibility to look into this matter in the interests of safety on the whole Atlantic coast?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend would normally wish to take the initiative or to interfere in the Institution's business. We are quite satisfied that the Institution is managed in the most efficient manner.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Report [2nd April] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would call the Recommittal Motion in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) if she would be willing to amend its terms by leaving out the reference to Clause 1, page 2, line 18, and to Clause 2, page 3, lines 9 and 29.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 3, line 10; Clause 3, page 5, line 27; Clause 9, page 9, lines 27 and 45; Clause 24, page 21, lines 42, 43, and 44; and Clause 29, page 25, line 43, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Miss Margaret Herbison.—[Miss Herbison.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES—APPROVED HOUSES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES AND HOUSES PROVIDED BY OTHER BODIES.)

Mr. John Robertson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert:
plus twenty-five pounds for every one per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeds three per cent.".

The purpose of the Amendment is to try to relate the subsidy to be paid under the Clause to the actual cost of financing the building of houses. We are all aware that the actual cost of building accounts for only a fraction of the total costs involved in house financing. Even if we accept the argument, advanced by the Government in the White Paper, that an income of £53 per house per year from rents and rates is reasonable, this still leaves costs of about £120 per house built per year to be met from somewhere or other. The subsidy proposed in the Clause leaves a deficit of £78, perhaps £80, per house per year. It is not suggested where this money is to come from.
We have been told many times that the Government's proposals are based on spreading the deficiency over the whole stock of existing houses, but what will happen in practice? In Paisley, rents and rates already account for £57 10s. per house per year. This is above what the Secretary of State said is reasonable. Consequently, the added burden on the town council for each new house built under the provisions of the Clause must either be spread over all the ratepayers or confined to the council tenants by increasing the rent. I have never been able to accept the idea of pooling housing costs and spreading them over the stock of existing houses. It is a mistaken idea. It fails to take into account many factors, such as the age of the oldest houses and the higher costs of maintenance of older houses. It tends, too. to establish a uniformity of rent. It creates a lack of flexibility in dealing with local authority problems.
Whatever one may say about that matter, these arguments can certainly not be applied to development corporations and only in a very modified way to the Scottish Special Housing Association. What the Government propose to do in the Clause is to squeeze the tenants as hard as they can, and then to meet the remaining deficiencies of the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association by applying a hidden subsidy in meeting the deficiency of these two bodies.
Because of the lack of time, I shall restrain myself. One of the difficulties in dealing with this subject under the Guillotine is that one cannot develop


the point as one would like. There are so many Amendments to be considered that the time available is only 20 minutes to each Amendment. This is a preposterous situation. That being the position, I shall not give a long explanation of the figures in the Amendment, but will only say that the effect would be to keep static the cost to local authorities, development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and so avoid putting an extra burden on the ratepayers or on the tenants.
The Amendment would also help the problems of importing authorities by not placing a tremendous new burden on small local authorities, and it would also, perhaps, help to speed up Glasgow's overspill. The Amendment would do much to provide the kind of flexibility about which the Under-Secretary has been talking during the last two or three weeks. The only difference is that his kind of flexibility has been all the one way—a flexibility that would give him the right to reduce subsidies. We believe that, where the circumstances warrant it, local authorities should have added subsidies.
The effect of the Amendment would be to increase the subsidy to such a figure as to provide that the rent and rate contribution would be at the £53 or £54 per annum level that the Government desire. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will see the logic of the mathematics, and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) is an optimist in asking the Minister to exercise some degree of flexibility, because that is the last thing I would ever dream of expecting from the the Under-Secretary. The Amendment, if it were accepted, would certainly help to stimulate the rate of municipal house building in the county in which the Minister himself resides, and I am quite sure that he would have to pay less in rates if that local authority were able to get a lower rate of interest for its house building.
The Amendment talks about
… twenty-five pounds for every one per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeds three per cent.

In the counties and the burghs there is certainly a great deal of feeling about the high rate of interest which, for example, constitutes an almost insuperable barrier to the County of Ayr and the town councils of Kilmarnock and other places building as they would wish.
Members of local authorities ask us very difficult questions about the rate of interest. The Amendment speaks of 3 per cent. We were recently told that the Government were borrowing a considerable sum of money from the International Monetary Fund and from the Government of Switzerland at that rate. Some members of local authorities wanted me to ask the Minister to put them in touch with the International Monetary Fund, or even with the Government of Switzerland, so that they might discover whether they, too, could borrow money at the very reasonable rate of 3 per cent.
I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to disappoint me by showing his flexibility in accepting the Amendment, and so helping the local authorities in the area in which he resides to go forward with the housing that is so badly needed there.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: The purpose of the Amendment is to give a stimulus to local authorities to proceed with house building on a much greater scale, which the figures produced in the Housing Review for Scotland show to be more than ever necessary. In that document we find that between 1955 and the end of 1961 the number of houses built by local authorities had fallen from 29,278 to 19,541.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that added encouragement must be given to local authorities to build houses. If he does not believe that the rate of interest payable at present is a deterrent to house building policies, he should look at the replies given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to our Parliamentary Questions. Over the past three months the right hon. Gentleman has said that nearly half of the Scottish local authorities are not building any houses at all. That is a shameful state of affairs in a country which, in my view,


is at present about the worst housed in Europe.
By encouraging local authorities to play their part in what is still Scotland's No. 1 social service—municipal housing—we will be fulfilling our responsibility, and I could not think of a better inducement to them than acceptance of the terms of the Amendment. Local authorities are at present having to pay quite prodigious interest rates. It is not simply a rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.—the rate is at least 6¾ per cent.—and one has only to follow that transaction over the sixty years' life of a house to realise the devastating effect of high rates of interest on local authority housing revenue accounts.
If the Under-Secretary does that, he will find that at the completion of the financial term the houses cost, on an average, anything from two-and-a-half to three times the actual building cost. I know that I am being rather conservative in quoting such a figure, but I give it as an average. There is no doubt that some houses cost very much more over the sixty years.
I can vividly recall that when the interest rate was increased by 2 per cent. some local authorities decided to take strike action, and stopped building. The Under-Secretary might call those "wildcat" strikes, but one local authority was controlled by his party. As a protest against such prodigious financial burdens being imposed on the local ratepayers, it elected not to build any houses at that time. That indicates the effect of the interest rates on the outlook of local authorities.
The Secretary of State was asked by me whether he could make a comparison between the interest rates of 1951 and 1961; and what would be their effect on present-day costs of building. He replied:
Annual loan charges on these 1961 costs would, at 6¾ per cent., be greater by the following amounts than at 3¾ per cent. in 1951; 3-apartment—£54 16s.; 4-apartment—£59 11s. 4d.; 5-apartment—£68 13s. 10d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 148.]
That shows the extra we are paying in interest rates for the houses we are building. If the Under-Secretary cares to multiply that figure by 60 he will have

a good idea of the crippling effect high interest charges have on the housing revenue accounts of Scottish local authorities.
How are we to tackle the problem? What must we do to redress this financial disadvantage? It would seem that we must make a financial contribution to local authorities so that they can overcome this serious economic problem and proceed with their house-building programmes. The Amendment would serve an extremely useful purpose in this respect, and, for that reason, I support it. Its object is clear, for it is designed to give authorities a stimulus and encourage them to proceed with enthusiasm and greater velocity—and, indeed, with more imagination—with their house-building programmes. Goodness gracious, if any part of the United Kingdom requires large-scale housing expansion, that part is Scotland.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will realise that the Amendment does not have a mischievous intent. Its object is to provide a financial inducement without which local authorities in Scotland will not be able to provide the housing needs of the people we represent. If the Government are genuinely keen to solve this problem, the Amendment provides one method of doing so. I hope that the Under-Secretary will see it in that light and will realise that the Amendment could be a boon to Scotland.

Mr. John Brewis: The Amendment seems to give a subsidy to certain houses built for overspill and other purposes under Clause 2 (1). The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) seemed to consider that the Amendment would extend to all houses built by local authorities and I believe that once the Amendment became law it would be difficult to differentiate between the conflicting needs of overspill and other local authority housing needs.
The Amendment appears to insulate the building of a house costing £2,500 from the increased Bank Rate because 1 per cent. of £2,500 is £25. To my way of thinking, local authority houses, in many cases, cost less than £2,500 and, therefore, there is an element in the Amendment of a concealed subsidy, even over and above allowing for high interest rates. Once one allows this idea.


that housing should be able to contract out of the economic policy of the country, one is in difficulty. I notice that Sir Stafford Cripps, as long ago as 1948, said that the rates of interest charged to local authorities were fixed from time to time to correspond broadly with Government borrowing rates for a comparable period.
Expenditure by local authorities on capital account is about one-fifth of the expenditure of the country and, therefore, if favourable interest rates were given to them it would, to a certain extent, nullify the economic policy of the country as a whole and some money would have to be raised either by taxation or inflation. I do not say that interest rates are not an important matter in the provision of houses, but it is relevant to quote from the Toothill Report, paragraph 1724 of which stated:
It was claimed by some local authorities that high rates of interest are a serious factor in housing finance. The great bulk of local authority houses were, however, built at low rates of interest so that current high rates have a small effect on total costs. Against the rent factor, the burden of current interest rates is small.
We must keep a sense of proportion about this and, for that reason, I object to the Amendment.

Mr. J. Robertson: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) quoted from the Toothill Report. May I draw his attention to the opening words of his speech, when he referred to overspill, which, of course, has a bearing on the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. Will the hon. Member relate his arguments to the accounts of this Association and the development corporations?

Mr. Brewis: I was pointing out that once we started giving an extra subsidy for overspill it would be difficult to stop there, for we would have to extend it to other types of expenditure by local authorities, including that on water and on old people's homes.

Mr. John Strachey: If an hon. Member who was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill but who has tried to follow the proceedings—and it is important that all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies should express their views—wishes to join the debate at this point, may I say that the Amendment

is an extremely interesting one because it raises the whole issue of the effect of interest rates on local authority housing, in whole or in part, and the question whether or not it is right to offset that effect in any way. As the hon. Member for Galloway asked: is it or is it not a good thing to discriminate between housing and other economic activities? We are perfectly clear about this; we are clear that it may be a good thing to do so. I would be surprised if the Leader of the House, whom I see in his place, would take the view that it is really wise to put the Government in a position of opposition to any form of discrimination as between one kind of economic activity and another.
Surely any element of planning, even financial planning, must result in the Government paying attention—even though this Government only pays lip-service to planning—to precisely this process of discrimination, although, apparently, that shocks the hon. Member for Galloway. My hon. Friends and I believe in discrimination between one kind of economic activity and another. We certainly do so regarding Scottish housing where it is desperately needed and where some sort of discrimination is necessary in favour of this economic activity.
Surely that is the principle here involved. It can be achieved by giving specially low rates of interest. But, if the Government will not do that, they can offset the high general rates of interest by special housing subsidies. That is a rather roundabout way of doing it, but it is quite possible. That is the issue of principle. What reason can there be for not doing that?
The hon. Member for Galloway produced the argument that interest rates do not affect housing. That, of course, contradicts the whole of the earlier part of his speech, in which he implied that interest rates were an overwhelmingly important factor facing local authorities. That is, of course, true and everyone knows it. The rate of interest is, of course, an enormously important factor when considering highly durable goods like a house.
We believe that Scottish housing, above all, must be exempted in one way or another from the general restrictionist


policy of the Government. That is the issue I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with, because it is the only real issue of principle to be faced, and the Amendment brings it out in an acute form. We would like to see this matter dealt with clearly and as a matter of principle.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: As the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has just come into the Chamber, I should say—I would have said it, in any event—that I am a considerable recipient of subsidies. But I have never failed to state publicly, in this Chamber and on many occasions outside it, that it is a good principle to have no more subsidies than are absolutely necessary and that that policy, in my industry also, should be directed to doing what the Bill tries to do, which is to put subsidies where they are most needed.

Mr. William Ross: On to the hon. Member's farm?

Mr. Stodart: That is a matter for discussion.

The Amendment calls for a fairly stiff increase in the rate of subsidy. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that a stimulant is necessary in house building of all kinds in Scotland, there are two weaknesses in that line of approach.

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), despite all the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), that there should not be discrimination between loans for house building. I have not heard one argument which has convinced me that we should isolate this sector from the ordinary free market rate of borrowing. Why not have cheap loans for public services of all kinds, including gas, electricity and all sorts of undertakings? The hon. Member for Fife, West has never failed, in any debate in Committee upstairs on this Housing Bill, to mention the farming industry. Why I cannot quite think. He has said more than once that we are virtually publicly owned.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have never said that the farming

industry was publicly owned. I said that it was publicly financed.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member has certainly said that we ought to be publicly owned. If that is the case, I might ask: why not have cheap loans for farming? The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie has mentioned what he calls the cruel rate of interest of 6¾ per cent. I had a much more cruel one of 8 per cent. not long ago.

Mr. Ross: Is the prevailing rate of interest on capital for agriculture taken into account in the determination of the needs of the industry?

The Chairman: Order. The Committee is in danger of turning this into an agricultural debate, which would be out of order on the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: I am sorry, Sir William, for straying. I was tempted to go a little further.
The second weakness in the Amendment is that however we achieve what hon. Members opposite want, whether by cheap loans, by higher subsidies, or by discrimination of one kind or another, somebody must pay for manipulating the market. That somebody is the taxpayer. One has to strike a point of balance between the advantage to house building and the cost to the taxpayer. Subsidies are invariably a blunt weapon and they have little precision about them wherever they are used. For that reason, I do not support the Amendment.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We have had some curious economic arguments this afternoon. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) seems to me to be completely misinformed about housing subsidies, in which there are all sorts of differences. One of the arguments of the Government for increasing the present housing loan interest and keeping it high is that the local authority can spread the increase over all the other interest rates when some of the loans are obtained at cheaper rates.
In effect, therefore, there is already discrimination in interest rates by the Government. Older loans are charged at less than the new loans, which will be charged for about sixty years at the present rate even if interest rates come down. This is certainly a method by


which the Government reduce subsidies to local authorities by increasing their interest rates.
The idea that the Government borrow money from farmers and others to lend to local authorities is so much "hooey"—

Mr. Stodart: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Woodburn: But the farmers are being investors. When they get these big profits, they must do something with them and they do not invest them all in Government loans. Presumably, however, some of the money finds its way back to the Government in loans.
In any event, that is not where the bulk of the money comes from. It is created by the banking institutions and it costs the Government only the amount that is necessary to administer these loans over sixty years. This is not something which is borrowed from the public in order to lend to the local authorities. It is a method by which the Government are increasing the charge for a loan service for sixty years. It is a method by which the local authorities are made to pay a higher proportion of the cost of a house than formerly.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is quite right. The houses have to be paid for either by the tenant, the local authority or the Government. A constant struggle goes on about who should pay most. The Government use all sorts of tricks to see that more goes on to the local authority or to compel the local authority to push more on to the tenant. What has to be settled is not all this academic business about the cost of loans, but the question of what are the fair proportions as between tenant, local authority and Government. That is the argument which is presented by the Amendment.
The Government are increasing the cost to the local authority and, through the local authority, to the tenant by subterfuges of talking about market interest rates and things of that kind. This is a matter of Government decision. The Government can decide what proportion is to be paid by themselves, by the local authority and by the tenant. That is done by different methods, of which the subsidy is one and the rate of interest another. It would be far better if the Government were straight

and honest and stopped all this humbug about interest and decided what proportion would be paid. Then, the public, the tenants and the local authorities would know where they stood.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): We have had an interesting debate on the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson). Its effect would be to increase the rate of subsidy for overspill houses or houses provided by the new town development corporations or the Scottish Special Housing Association by £25 for every 1 per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeded 3 per cent. It would accordingly tie the overspill rate of subsidy to the prevailing rate of interest, which, presumably, is the Public Works Loan Board rate.

The Amendment is an attempt to introduce the conception that subsidies should be increased to compensate for increases in the interest rates.

Mr. Woodburn: Is that not exactly what the Home Secretary did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he increased the subsidies in his first Budget?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that he did it in the way proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: But he did it.

Mr. Galbraith: The Amendment is an attempt to introduce the conception that subsidies should be increased to compensate for increases in interest rates. As the Committee will know, this is a very old hare which has been chased on many occasions. I do not think that hon. Members opposite—certainly not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who has the honour to represent me in Parliament—will be a bit surprised to hear that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
As has been explained on very many occasions, the Government take the view that, as the rate of interest reflects the economic situation, there is no reason why local authorities, as regards housing or other services, should be exempt from the economic trends which are reflected in the rates of interest they are called upon to pay for the money they require in order to build their houses.


In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) pointed out, how could such a policy be limited just to overspill housing?
I thought that my hon. Friend answered very well the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)—whom we are glad to have with us this afternoon. Once this policy was adopted for overspill housing, why not for all housing subsidies? Indeed, why not for a good many other services, such as water and electricity? A similar insulation from increases in interest rates might be claimed for such services on the same grounds as have been used in this debate in respect of housing. The Amendment cuts across the whole economic policy of the Government. It is unacceptable for that reason.
Moreover, the Amendment bears little relation to the actual practice of local authorities in borrowing. Although the cost of local authority housing is usually financed over a period of sixty years, the initial borrowing will usually be for a very much shorter period. It is, therefore, completely wrong to assume, as hon. Members in advocating the Amendment seem to assume, that local authorities will continue to pay interest for sixty years at the rate prevailing when the subsidy approval was first given. What most large local authorities do is to maintain a consolidated loans fund under which the cost of borrowing borne by the new services is not the cost of raising new money, but the average cost of all outstanding loans.

Mr. Dempsey: That is not what the Secretary of State seems to say.

Mr. Galbraith: That is what happens in fact. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who has a great deal of experience of local government affairs, must be aware of that. These internal borrowing rates have, admittedly, risen in recent years, but they are still normally less than five per cent., which is well below the P.W.L.B. rate.
I need hardly add that, besides being unacceptable on grounds of principle, the Amendment would raise the subsidy under Clause 2 to an unreasonably high level. At the present Public Works

Loan Board rate of interest, it would add £75 to the subsidy rate of £42. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to accept a subsidy rate of £117—which is what it would amount to—over sixty years, or nearly three times the rate payable under existing legislation.

Mr. J. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee the position of the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and what the actual subsidy is per house built by a development corporation taking into consideration the grant made by the Government towards deficiencies?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot do it "off the cuff". If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have that information, I can easily find out for him.
As so often happens, the good hearts of hon. Members opposite seem to be ruling their heads. What they suggest in this Amendment is really impossible. Interesting and ingenious though it is, I must tell them that the Government cannot possibly accept it.

4.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The Minister's reply is not surprising. When he has no case at all, he accuses us of letting our hearts rule our heads. What we intend by the Amendment is to ensure that more and more desperately needed houses are built in Scotland. To look at only part of it, overspill, and relate that to the need in Glasgow, one sees how forcibly the need for additional subsidy is shown.
It has been interesting to hear the back benchers on the Government side. During the Committee stage and today we have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mar. Brewis) why the Government cannot accept our Amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) amused me. He said that subsidies were a blunt weapon and, because they were a blunt weapon, he was against them. It has been evident throughout our consideration of the Bill that he has been against reasonable subsidies for housing, but I wish that he carried that strong principle into his attitude to farming. If he did, he would not want the kind of subsidies that many


farmers receive today. I shall be able to believe that he is really in earnest about this blunt instrument when he speaks in an agriculture debate and says that he will vote against the farming subsidy on that ground.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Galloway both said that the rate of interest reflects the economic situation of the Whole country. Year after year, of course, our economy has under this Government sunk further into the mire. We do not quarrel with that description from the Minister, but we do quarrel with him when he says that it is vital that local authority housing should not be insulated against what he calls the prevailing economic situation. This is a heartless attitude on the part of the Government. We have had evidence of it throughout the whole Committee stage proceedings.
Have the Government ever said that industry generally—I leave farming out of it now—cannot be insulated against the high rate of interest or against the prevailing economic situation? What happened to Colvilles? If the Government were to apply to Colvilles what they have rigidly applied in the matter of subsidies and interest rates for housing, Colvilles would be in a much more difficult position today. What about the motor car industry? I am not quite sure, but I suspect that the Government are by their help insulating that industry—for very worth-while purposes; I do not complain in the least—against the prevailing economic situation. The whole argument advanced by the Minister and the Member for Galloway falls when we find that in other sectors

the Government have done what we are asking them to do for Scottish housing.

The Minister said that the Amendment would raise the subsidy to an unreasonably high level. We had worked out, of course, that it would mean a £75 increase, but we regard that as absolutely necessary if we are to have the number of houses we need, and absolutely necessary, also, even if the average gross annual value is charged as the rent. In other words, in asking for this subsidy we are not in any way supporting low rents in Scotland.

I could have adduced other arguments, but we are pressed for time and I will content myself with adding that we must vote against the Government's attitude on this matter and for our Amendment.

Mr. J. Robertson: The Under-Secretary has not answered the points at all. The Clause deals particularly with development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and we are asking that the Government subsidy be paid to these two bodies. The Public Accounts Committee investigated the accounts of the Scottish Special Housing Association and the development corporations, and the hon. Gentleman will find that the grants made by the Government to meet the deficiencies add up to this amount. The realistic situation of Scottish housing is that a subsidy of £117 is required so that houses can be let at rents that people can afford.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153. Noes 208.

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[4.21 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forman, J. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, John
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Galpern, Sir Myer


Awbery, Stan
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gourlay, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Deer, George
Grey, Charles


Benson, Sir George
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, John
Hannan, William


Blyton, William
Dodds, Norman
Harper, Joseph


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leice, S. W.)
Driberg, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bowles, Frank
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Healey, Denis




Herbison, Miss Margaret


Boyden, James
Ede, Rt. Hon. C
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edelman, Maurice
Holman, percy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hoy, James H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Callaghan, James
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Finch, Harold
Hunter, A, E.


Cliffe, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)




Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Monslow, Walter
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Moyle, Arthur
Small, William


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Jeger, George
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oliver, G. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, A. E.
Steele, Thomas


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas
Stones, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Will
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kelley, Richard
Parker, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


King, Dr. Horace
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Peart, Frederick
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pentland, Norman
Timmons, John


Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, R. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Warbey, William


McInnes, James
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Randall, Harry
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


McLeavy, Frank
Redhead, E. C.
Willey, Frederick


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Reid, William
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Marsh, Richard
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Edward
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Milne, Edward
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Drayson, G. B.
James, David


Aitken, W. T.
Duncan, Sir James
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, John
Eden, John
Jennings, R. C.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Balniel, Lord
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Barber, Anthony
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Barlow, Sir John
Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony


Barter, John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kimball, Marcus


Batsford, Brian
Farr, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Berkeley, Humphry
Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, Gilmour


Biffen, John
Fletcher, Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John


Black, Sir Cyril
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Longbottom, Charles


Bossom, Clive
Gilmour, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert


Bourne-Arton, A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.


Box, Donald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lubbock, Eric


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)


Brewis, John
Goodhart, Philip
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Brooman-White, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr, R.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullard, Denys
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maginnis, John E.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maitland, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marlowe, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas


Chataway, Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cleaver, Leonard
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mills, Stratton


Collard, Richard
Hendry, Forbes
Miscampbell, N.


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hobson, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Morrison, John


Costain, A. P.
Hollingworth, John
Nabarro, Gerald


Coulson, Michael
Holt, Arthur
Neave, Alrey


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hopkins, Alan
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Critchley, Julian
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Curran, Charles
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dance, James
Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John


Doughty, Charles
Jackson, John
Percival, Ian







Peyton, John
Seymour, Leslie
Turner, Colin


Pitman, Sir James
Shaw, M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Pott, Percivall
Skeet. T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Smithers, Peter
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, Rupert
Walder, David


Pym, Francis
Stodart, J. A.
Ward, Dame Irene


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ramsden, James
Storey, Sir Samuel
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Rees, Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Talbot, John E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Wise, A. R.


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woollam, John


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Worsley, Marcus


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)



Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Russell, Ronald
Thorpe, Jeremy
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Scott-Hopkins, James
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mr. Noble.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES— OTHER APPROVED HOUSES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end to insert:
(7) Section one hundred and forty of the principal Act (which requires every local authority to carry, in each financial year, to the credit of the housing repairs account in respect of each house, building and dwelling such amount as they may think proper, not being less than eight pounds) shall have effect in relation to the first financial year beginning after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and to each subsequent financial year with the substitution for the words "eight pounds" of the words "twelve pounds".
This Amendment is a proposed addition to Clause 3 (6), which deals with the provision of the 1950 Act which decides the amount that should be paid by a local authority in respect of each of its houses into its housing repairs account each year. Under the 1950 Act the sum was £4 a year. A few years after that the amount was increased to £8, obviously because it had become insufficient as a result of increasing costs. We contend that we have now reached a point in time when there should be another increase.
I believe that the Government recognise this, but what they are saying, in effect, is that they do not trust local authorities to make a true return. According to subsection (6), if a local authority puts to its housing repairs account £12 per year per house instead of £8, the Secretary of State may debar

it from including the additional £4 in the debit side of its housing revenue account and thus he could debar it from qualifying for the £32 subsidy, and the result might be that it would get a subsidy of only £12.
There are very substantial grounds for our case that the amount should be increased automatically as it was previously. I estimate that since the repairs allocation was increased to £8 the cost of repairs has risen by about £75 per cent. The Secretary of State has told us that the average being paid in Scotland is £8 14s. That is already over the figure laid down, and many local authorities are paying much more. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) instanced during the earlier Committee proceedings the Burgh of Dumbarton as paying an average of £11 16s. in repairs, but the actual contribution that the authority is making to its repairs account in respect of each house is 12 guineas per year.
The figures that we have culled from the rating review apply to 1960, and now we are in 1962 and costs have gone up substantially in the meantime. I am sure that hon. Members opposite who are fair-minded would agree that the tendency would be for the figures to have increased because the costs in respect of labour and material for repairing local authority houses have risen.
Taking the 1960 figures, one can pick out the small burghs of Alloa, Barrhead, Irvine and Troon with the figure for repairs per house varying between £11 and £13. Turning to the counties, we have Angus, Caithness, Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, Inverness, Kirkcudbrightshire, Renfrew, Ross and


Cromarty, Selkirk and Sutherland paying from £11 to £14 18s. per house for actual repairs. Therefore, we are already well over the figure laid down.
The Scottish Office is well aware of this, but does not want to make it appear to the local authorities that it is raising the figure because of the new formula which has been introduced. I see the Under-Secretary shaking his head. Why does he not allow local authorities to debit their housing revenue accounts with the actual cost? He is not allowing them to put to their housing repair accounts the difference between £8 and what they are actually paying unless he consults them and they can justify it.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is dealing with a crowd of school children? He seems to be lining them up in a row and asking them their intentions. This is a besmirching of Scotland's elected representatives, and I am sick and tired of it. It is dreadful. I indict Ministers and Departments. I do not know where this emanates from, but whoever had this brainchild ought thoroughly to be condemned and "given his cards", whether he is an elected representative or otherwise.
The Government are virtually telling the public-spirited men and women who are coming forward for election into local government that they are not to be trusted. This is likely to result in people of a lower calibre coming forward, for what ordinary, decent, straightforward men or women would allow themselves to be treated in this way and held to these rules? It is most disgraceful and shocking that this should be brought into Scottish public life.

Mr. Brewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rules are exactly the same whether the figure is £8 or £4, as it was under the Socialist Administration?

Mr. Manuel: The thing that I deplore about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they think in abstract terms and deal with only one part of a problem.
An amount between £8 and £12 or £14 is not to be allowed to count on the debit side of the housing revenue account, as it has hitherto been allowed to count, because this might have an

effect in deciding whether a local authority is to get the £32 subsidy or the £12 subsidy. That is the part I deplore. This formula is entirely new, so the hon. Member is off the rails a little.
I think that I have said enough to show our thoughts on this matter. If the Committee wishes to strengthen local authorities, it should show more trust in them. Do not let us destroy the fabric of local government and discourage the men and women who come forward to serve in a selfless way. I hope that the Committee will have regard to the strength of the Amendment and its purpose towards the elected representatives of the people of Scotland on local authorities.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Everything he said has confirmed my view that he has misread the 1950 Act and that the Amendment will not achieve any purpose. Certainly, it would not achieve what the hon. Member claimed for it. Under the 1950 Act, a local authority must put to its housing revenue account a minimum sum of £8. There is no question of a maximum sum. The Bill says that the Secretary of State may disallow that part of the excess which he does not consider to be reasonable.

Mr. Manuel: I said so.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman may have said so, but he went on to give figures which belied that understanding of the situation. He told us that the average figure placed to the debit of housing revenue accounts throughout Scotland was not £8 or £12, but £8 14s. That is very much less than the figure he proposes.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the fact that the figure is only £8 14s. is because the Secertary of State gave certain local authorities discretion to charge only £6 per house against the repairs account where the account is in a healthy state.

Mr. Hendry: That may be so, but the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is seeking to substitute £12 for £8 when the average figure is £8 14s. That makes nonsense.

Mr. Manuel: If the hon. Gentleman studies the rating revenue for 1960, he will see that those local authorities charging only £8—some are charging less—are doing so in a desperate attempt to save rates, but are finding their housing repairs accounts becoming in a parlous condition.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is getting into deeper water. The cost of maintaining a house is ascertainable in pounds, shillings and pence, and is not related to any notional figure of £8 or £12 or any other. The figure which a local authority notionally carries to its housing revenue account makes no difference to the rates.

Mr. Manuel: That is a monstrous statement. The hon. Gentleman was once a town clerk. He does not know his business. He should resign.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote what he thought were extreme cases. He mentioned the large burgh of Dumbarton, with a figure of £11 16s. That extreme case is still below the figure of £12, which makes nonsense of the argument for the Amendment. He spoke of figures between £12 and £14 for burghs, admitting that some of them were under £12. The Amendment is nonsensical, because it would allow a debit in a housing revenue account of £12, when the average now is only £8 14s. Only in the most exceptional cases is the figure £12.

Mr. E. G. Willis: That is not surprising under a Tory Government.

Mr. Hendry: If a local authority is so ill-advised as to carry as debit a figure which is in excess of its actual expenditure, the Secretary of State, quite rightly, has power to disallow part of it. But an honest local authority—which means 99·5 per cent., I hope, of local authorities—will put in an honest figure and the Secretary of State will not have occasion to use his power. In view of the fact that the Amendment would not only achieve nothing, but is also nonsensical, it should be cast out without further consideration.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I wish that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) were on the Opposition Front

Bench again. When he is there his speeches are very much more reasonable than they are when he is, to a certain extent, up in the clouds.
The effect of the Amendment would be, as he said, to raise the minimum contribution of a local authority to its housing repairs account from £8 to £12. As he pointed out, Clause 3 (6) provides that where the Secretary of State considers that a local authority's contribution from its housing revenue account to its housing repairs account is excessive, having regard to its previous practice and to any other circumstances, the excess amount may be excluded from its expenditure for the purposes of the resources test. That is all. It is only excluded for the purpose of the resources test. The expenditure admitted for the resources test cannot be less than the minimum of £8 per house.
It is perhaps worth emphasising, since the hon. Gentleman seems to be in doubt on this, that, if the Secretary of State decides that a local authority's repair contributions are excessive, he need not disregard the whole excess over the minimum of £8. He may admit some amount intermediate between £8 and the actual amount paid out of the housing revenue if the circumstances seem to him to justify this.
The statutory minimum contribution is £8 and the Amendment proposes to increase it to £12. I think that the hon. Gentleman had in mind the fact that, with a statutory minimum contribution of £12 instead of £8, the Secretary of State's scope for disregarding expenditure under subsection (6) would be correspondingly reduced.

Mr. Willis: So it should be.

Mr. Galbraith: I thought that that was probably the reason. As I have said, I think that the hon. Member makes this proposal for a mistaken reason, as the Secretary of State would not automatically out excessive contributions down to the minimum figure.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire also suggested that because costs have increased since the minimum contribution of £8 was laid down in 1952, the minimum ought to be higher today. It is true that costs of maintenance have risen and that the actual contributions by local authorities to their repairs


accounts have risen in consequence. But the minimum amount which is mentioned here is indeed the minimum. There is nothing to prevent any local authority from putting into its repairs account whatever money it needs to spend. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates that fact.
A local authority can put in more than £8 if it wishes to do so. If it can show that repairs and maintenance will cost more, it is fully entitled to keep its repairs account in funds by increasing the contribution which it makes to it from the housing revenue account. There is no intention that any such contribution to the repairs account which is genuinely required by reason of increased costs or because of other things—

Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "increased costs"?

Mr. Galbraith: I thought that would upset the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). If, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, such a contribution is required for the purpose for which it is stated to be required, it will not be disregarded in the resources test calculations. I can give hon. Members opposite a complete assurance on that point.
Nothing in the Bill will prevent a local authority from properly maintaining its houses, nor will it be in any danger of getting a smaller subsidy through carrying out necessary repairs and maintenance. Since the Government are so keen on the proper maintenance of houses, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire may wonder why we refuse to accept the Amendment to raise the minimum contribution from £8 to £12. The reason is quite simple. We agree that the cost of repairs has risen and we also realise that if it rises further the time will come when an increase in the minimum figure will be necessary.
Where the hon. Member and I part company is that I do not think that that time has yet come.

Mr. Willis: When will it come?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not know, but it has not come yet.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that on-costs and repairs have increased more since the figure of £8

was introduced than they did in the few years between the increase from £4 to £8?

Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
I am saying that the time to increase the minimum contribution has not yet come. I say that because a number of authorities are still able to repair and maintain their houses at an annual cost of less than £8 a house. This is shown by the fact that in 1960–61 no less than 24 applications by local authorities to contribute less than £8 a house to their repairs account were granted by the Secretary of State.
These applications were made under Section 140 (3) of the 1950 Act, which empowers the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local authority, to give a direction for the reduction or suspension of the repairs contribution if he thinks that the sum standing to the credit of the repairs account is more than sufficient for the purposes for which the account is kept. The fact that no less than 24 applications to contribute less than £8 were agreed to by my right hon. Friend indicates that the figure of £8 is not unduly low.

If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that more local authorities would have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to contribute less than the proposed figure of £12. Hon, Members opposite must, therefore, realise that the Amendment would force extra work on local authorities by obliging them to make application to the Secretary of State which would be quite unnecessary if things were left as they are.

In the Government's opinion, the Amendment is premature. It has been shown that £8 is a sufficient minimum at the moment—and I stress "at the moment". I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: The great difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite, including the Under-Secretary of State, is that we trust local authorities, whereas hon. Members opposite continually show by their speeches and their votes that they distrust local authorities and always try to find ways and means of hamstringing them.
I wish to take up the final point made by the Minister. He said that the Amendment would only place extra work on local authorities because many of them would ask for permission not to contribute £12 to their repairs accounts. I want to point out what the result will be if the Amendment is not accepted.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that the Amendment was nonsensical. In Committee we were accustomed to the kind of speech which he made today. I was accustomed to that kind of speech before he came to the House of Commons. I suspect that it was nonsensical of the hon. Gentleman's Government, in 1952, to raise the figure from £4 to £8, particularly in the light of the information which the Minister has given to the effect that more than 20 local authorities in 1960 asked for permission not to contribute as much as £8. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and not put an interpretation on them completely different from that intended by my hon. Friend.
The Minister stated that the figure would remain at £8 for some time. He clearly showed that even he and his officials had their doubts about the wisdom of refusing to accept the Amendment. The figure of £4 was raised to £8 in 1952. Now, ten years later, can the Under-Secretary of State argue that repair costs have not increased since 1952? Of course he cannot. The hon. Gentleman should have tabled an Amendment which at least showed that the Government realise that the cost of repairs to houses has increased in the last few years.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Secretary of State would not automatically disallow any figure of £8. We know that. He said that 24 applications by local authorities to contribute less than £8 a house to their repairs account were granted. It would have been more useful if he had told us the number of local authorities which have contributed more than £8 a year per house to their

accounts, if he could have shown that there was none, or perhaps two; but the numbers have been growing each year. Each year, more and more local authority houses are getting older and need more repairs. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State took that into account.

I am sure that every local authority in Scotland would willingly accept the little extra work which would be placed on its officials if the figure of £12 were accepted. That is better than every local authority being put in the invidious position of being treated as though it were dishonest by being told "There is a big increase in the sum that you wish to put into your housing repairs account. My officials at St. Andrew's House will examine that very carefully and only when we have the result of that examination will we decide what to do." This is an attitude to local authorities which has been growing during the last ten years under a Tory Government.

5.0 p.m.

We on this side have no doubt about why this Clause has been put in the Bill and why there has been resistance to our Amendment. Under the Bill, quite a number of local authorities are to be given a £12 subsidy instead of one of £24. Which are the local authorities? They are those local authorities which, in the Minister's own words, have a big pool of houses which were built when the subsidies were higher; and if that is so. they are older houses and need much more repair.

If the Under-Secretary of State continues to resist the Amendment, we feel, and, I think, rightly, that this part of the Clause will be used as a weapon by the Government to ensure that those local authorities which are to get the £12 subsidy will be prevented from going up into the £32 subsidy category. We have no doubt about that, and it is for these reasons that we intend to vote on this Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 215.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[5.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Beaney, Alan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benson, Sir George
Brockway, A. Fenner


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Awbery, Stan
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowles, Frank
Callaghan, James


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Boyden, James
Castle, Mrs. Barbara




Chapman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Rankin, John


Cliffe Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, E. C.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Keller, Richard
Rhodes, H.


Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rosa, William


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Edward


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McInnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Small, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavey, Frank
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, Julian


Evans, Albert
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Finch, Harold
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Stones, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mendelson, J. J
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward
Taverne, D.


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchlson, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Walter
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Arthur
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Grey, Charles
Neal, Harold
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, William
Oliver, G. H.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Harper, J.
Oram, A. E.
Timmons, John


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin


Healey, Denis
Owen, Will
Warbey, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, David


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Paget, R. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holt, Arthur
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, Frederick


Hoy, James H.
Parker, John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hunter, A. E.
Peart, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jeger, George
Probert, Arthur



Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
Farr, John


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H. P. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Allason, James
Chataway, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cleaver, Leonard
Freeth, Denzil


Balniel, Lord
Collard, Richard
Gammans, Lady


Barber, Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Barlow, Sir John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gilmour, Sir John


Barter, John
Corfield, F. V.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bell, Ronald
Coulson, Michael
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Goodhew, Victor


Biffen John
Curran, Charles
Gower, Raymond


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dance, James
Green, Alan


Bishop, F. P.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gresham Cooke, R.


Black, Sir Cyril
de Ferranti, Basil
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bossom, Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Box, Donald
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Brewis, John
Duncan, Sir James
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Brooman-White, R.
Eden, John
Hendry, Forbes


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hobson, Sir John


Bryan, Paul
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Bullard, Denys
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hollingworth, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hopkins, Alan


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hornby, R. P.







Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dams P.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Howard. John (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, John
Speir, Rupert


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stodart, J. A.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Nabarro, Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Neave, Airey
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


James, David
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Talbot, John E.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tapsell, Peter


Jennings, J. C.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Leavey, J. A,
Pitman, Sir James
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Leburn, Gilmour
Pott, Percivall
Turner, Colin


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pym, Francis
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Litchfield, Capt. John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Longbottom, Charles
Ramsden, James
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Longden, Gilbert
Rawlinson, Peter
Walder, David


Loveys, Walter H,
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute& N. Ayrs.)
Rees, Hugh
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, David
Whitelaw, William


MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maginnis, John E.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wise, A. R.


Marlowe, Anthony
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Marshall, Douglas
Russell, Ronald
Woodnutt, Mark


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woollam, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Seymour, Leslie
Worsley, Marcus


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Shaw, M.



Mills, Stratton
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miscampbell, N.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.


Montgomery, Fergus
Smithers, Peter

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS WITH RESPECT TO SUBSIDIES FOR HOUSES PROVIDED BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS UNDER AUTHORISED. OR SPECIAL. ARRANGEMENTS.)

Sir Myer Galpern: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out from "State" to "pay" and to insert "shall".

The Chairman: It may be convenient to take with this Amendment the other Amendment to Clause 9, namely, that in page 9, line 45, to leave out from "State" to "pay" and to insert "shall".

Sir M. Galpern: As this rotten Bill moves with indecent swiftness through its final stages, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that its purpose is not that which the Secretary of State has so often claimed for it—the stimulating of house building in Scotland. I believe that it has a two-fold objective. The first is, by various devious devices, certainly not in keeping with the dignity with the Secretary of State or even a

Tory Government, so to frame legislation that it will ultimately relieve the Government of any financial contribution to house building in Scotland. The Bill shows a determined desire so to arrange financial matters and to give the Secretary of State such power that ultimately he will be able to tell local authorities that they are to get nothing from the Government to help them with their terrible housing problems.
The other and more dangerous objective is to elevate the Secretary of State to the rôle of dictator. The offending phrase which we are seeking to delete from Clause 9,
may, if he thinks fit",
is the language of the bully. It is arrogant to say to people who ought to be regarded as partners, "I am the big boy and you will do as I think fit". That is not an attitude which should be adopted towards democratically elected public representatives. I do not know how new this phrase is, but it occurs too often in the Bill and a number of our Amendments have been directed towards its deletion.
Local authorities are doing their best. It is they who build the houses. Although


the Government claim credit for a tremendous increase in the number of houses which have been provided, those who do the work are the very people who are insulted throughout the Bill. Our Amendment says, in effect, "Mr. Secretary of State, there are other people as interested and more interested in house building than you are, and you must deal with them in a reasonable and just fashion".
5.15 p.m.
If, as I hope, the Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read:
The Secretary of State shall pay to the local authority a sum equivalent to any subsidy …".
What is proposed in Clause 9 is that when a housing association or development corporation defaults in the arrangement which it has made with the local authority, the local authority will automatically be vested with the houses with which the association or corporation was concerned.
It is only natural that the local authority should take over from a defaulting housing association or development corporation. But if it falls heir to a project, it should also fall heir to the rights which go with the project, namely, the subsidy. But in subsection (2, a) the Secretary of State says that no further subsidy shall be paid, but that in certain circumstances, "if he thinks fit", he may pay to the local authority a sum equivalent to any subsidy which would have been paid.
Let us examine this provision in some detail and apply it to a given situation. Housing associations are entirely new. They are experimental. We do not know how they will develop. In that state of newness, one can expect many difficulties, and I expect a great crop of difficulties which will lead to the abandonment of people who have entered such associations with the best possible purposes only to find ultimately that they are overwhelmed by the project which has to be abandoned and left half finished. It may be completed, but if it is unfinished the local authority will be asked to take it over. The subsidy will stop and, if the Secretary of State thinks fit. he may grant the local authority the sum equivalent to the subsidy which would have been paid.
It is not reasonable to expect a local authority to carry on with a project when it is uncertain of the economic mood of the Secretary of State, on which will depend whether he will continue the subsidy or say that it is not an occasion which warrants the continuance of the subsidy. Why should a local authority be at the whim and caprice and mood of the Secretary of State at any time? That could lead to a local authority justifiably declaring that in those circumstances it would have nothing to do with a project of that kind, for it is entitled to know exactly where it stands.
If we total up all the "if he thinks fits" and all the other qualifications, we see that local authorities are to be left completely uncertain about future contributions from the Exchequer. This is deliberate policy and not something which has happened merely by chance, for the phrase "if he thinks fit" in this Clause follows the rest of the purpose of the Bill, with which the Opposition are in total disagreement.
When a local authority accepts the responsibilities, it should also have the rights which go with them. I hope that we shall not be told that this phrase is used in other Bills. We are not now dealing with what has gone before. It is too easy to wriggle out of a situation by saying that this has been done before. We are concerned with a housing situation on which very little impact has been made. The Secretary of State puts on a front by saying that he is anxious to help, but his actions seem to show that he has some other objective.
I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment he will follow it by accepting others and will categorically tell local authorities that if they take over responsibility from a housing association or development corporation he will pay them a sum equivalent to any subsidy which would have been paid, so that they are not left in this state of uncertainty.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not for one moment expect that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will accept this Amendment, because if it were carried it would completely thwart the purpose of the Government,


which is to take every possible power out of the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the people and concentrate it in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary of State. In future, as regards rents, subsidies and policy, the Under-Secretary of State will be a "tinpot Hilter".
We were told during the last war that it was a war against dictatorship, but most dictators come from inside a country and not from outside. I am not sure whether, in dealing with housing, Hitler would not have been a far more democratic person than the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary of State. In many ways the Under-Secretary of State is like Hitler, except that he does not have his moustache.

Mr. Willis: Hitler was a house painter.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend reminds me that Hitler was a painter. At least, therefore, he knew something about houses, and I am sure that if he were responsible for housing he would exercise more intelligence and discretion than we can expect from the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State.
The Government are here taking powers away from the democratically elected representatives of the people concerned. The Ayrshire County Council is dominated by Socialists, but they understand the housing needs of the area and were returned to the county council by the small burghs and by the landward areas largely because they were pledged to do something to change the appalling housing situation that has existed for so long in Scotland, but which in Ayrshire at any rate has to some extent been remedied by the progressive policies of the county council and the town council.
For many years I was provost of the burgh and member of the Cumnock Town Council. We had a progressive policy, as a result of which 90 per cent. of the houses are now owned by the municipality, and we resent power being taken out of the hands of the people who were sent to the town hall and put in the hands of somebody who is remote from the area concerned.
I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not like Cumnock Town Council. This is because of its policy of cheap rents. I do not want to go into the history of housing development in the area, but the town council has had to fight to make Cumnock Burgh one of the best towns for housing not only in Scotland, but in the country and, indeed, in the world. We have had to fight reactionary people. The reactionary landlord who supported the Government did his best to prevent houses being built, and we had to put a compulsory purchase order on him. Again, we had to go to arbitration over the cost of the land. Here again we were successful. In fact, the arbitrator gave less to the landlord than the town council were prepared to give him.
The more these small towns have asserted their democratic rights, the more jealous the Secretary of State for Scotland has become, and now the Government propose to whittle away the authority of the town and county councils so that they can concentrate power in the hands of the bureaucracy in St. Andrew's House; a bureaucracy which is taking its cue from the Conservative hierarchy throughout Scotland.
We know what is happening in Scotland. The people in the big house see democracy encroaching on their preserves. They do not like these housing schemes. They prefer houses dominated by local landlords. But now that these houses are being built, they have said to themselves, "We will allow them to build houses under certain restrictions, but we will retain power to fix the rents and to prevent any further advance by democracy."
This Bill takes us back to the seventeenth century.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment that we are now debating.

Mr. Hughes: It is a long way back to the seventeenth century, but the Minister is—

The Chairman: Order. That is what I am complaining about.

Mr. Hughes: That is precisely what I, too, am complaining about. However, Sir William, I am glad to see that we are not at cross-purposes.
I want to see the Bill so amended that powers will not be taken away from local authorities; that powers will not be put in the hands of a "tinpot Hitler" or a "tinpot Stalin", but that the local authorities will have power to administer housing in the way they have done up to now and as a result of which they have made such good progress.

Mr. Brewis: May I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the same words occur in the 1950 Act? Section 87 (2, b), says:
the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit …
Why is it that in those days the hon. Gentleman did not say that the Secretary of State for Scotland was a "tinpot dictator" or a "tinpot Molotov"?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the time he would know that I said a good many things then that I am saying now. One can use the same form of words to create bigger powers in a different way in a different setting and in a different Clause. The hon. Gentleman is an adolescent in these matters. As regards housing, he has not cut his wisdom teeth.
I hope that these Amendments will not be resisted and that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will say that he does not propose to usurp the powers of the people who are sent to the organs of local authority to represent ordinary people.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) appreciates that we are serious about this Amendment. Apart from the fact that he took us back to 1950, he must appreciate that we are clear here dealing with something that is being enacted for the first time. We are dealing not only with authorised arrangements made between a local authority and housing association corporations, but between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the corporations. What may have been applicable in 1950 is not entirely relevant now.
Apart from that, there is now a different attitude to housing from what there was in 1950, because until 1957

the Government were prepared to meet rising costs and rising interest rates by increased subsidies. We then entered a new housing era in Scotland.
This is a very narrow point. The Clause deals with authorised arrangements which have been made between a local authority and a housing association or corporation. The words "authorised arrangements" lead one to ask who authorised them? That person is the Secretary of State. The other arrangements are those made between the Secretary of State directly with the corporations or housing associations, so once again the Secretary of State authorises.
5.30 p.m.
We start with that, and then assume that these authorised arrangements have broken down and that the housing association or the corporation is in default. By virtue of the terms of the authorised arrangement the houses become vested in the local authority. This is where the grouse comes. If nothing had happened in relation to the authorised arrangements made between the local authority and the housing association a subsidy would have been payable, and would have continued to be payable not directly to the housing association but to the local authority, which would then pass it on to the housing association.
If, in these default circumstances, the house is vested with the local authority, why on earth, in this day and age—never mind what happened at any other time, or what words were included at any other time—should the Secretary of State take unto himself a discretionary power? Why should he decide to pay this to the local authority "if he thinks fit"? To me, those are rather insulting words. Before the question of default is mentioned in the Clause there is no mention of the Secretary of State's changing the subsidy payable to a local authority, to be passed on to a housing association "if he thinks fit". At the beginning of the Clause it is provided that the Secretary of State shall do so if he thinks that it is just. But the question of justice does not arise; it is purely a question of arrogance. It is purely and simply befuddled, bureaucratic arrogance.
If the Under-Secretary thinks that it is essential to retain these words, will he


explain what the rest of the subsection means? It reads:
the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, pay to the local authority a sum equivalent to any subsidy "—
and then come the words to which I wish to draw attention, and which to my mind construct a barrier of injustice—
which would, after the said time, have become payable to them under this Part of this Act in respect of the house if all conditions precedent to the payment of the subsidy had been at all material times observed",
that is to say, if conditons were such that the question of default had never arisen.
If the question of default had never arisen the subsidy would have been payable. It would have been mandatory to pay it. All that we suggest is that if those conditions apply there is no justice in giving the Secretary of State power to withhold payment "if he thinks fit". I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) began by discussing the whole purpose of the Bill. It would be better if we left that aspect of his speech until the Third Reading. The effect of the Amendment would be to delete the words
may, if he thinks fit
and replace them by the one word "shall". This would make it obligatory upon the Secretary of State to pay to a local authority, when a housing association because became vested in it, a sum equivalent to the subsidy which would have been payable in respect of the house if it had remained in the ownership of the association.
Subsection (2), in effect, empowers the transfer of a subsidy from a housing association to a local authority when a house built by the association, with the aid of a subsidy, under authorised arrangements, becomes vested in the local authority. Subsection (4) applies the same provision to special arrangements. The principle behind these provisions is in no sense new. It is merely a continuation of the power contained in Section 87 of the 1950 Act. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston need not wave his hand; I am coming to his argument in a moment. The 1950 Act made the transfer of a subsidy subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State

in the same way as is now proposed. There is nothing new in this power.

Mr. Dempsey: Tell me the old. old story.

Mr. Manuel: There is nothing new, except for the Secretary of State.

Mr. Galbraith: The Secretary of State is new; but he has been going for longer than any other Secretary of State.
I may say that the provision contained in the 1950 Act, including the permissive power, had its origin in Section 11 (1) of the 1946 Housing Act, which was enacted by a Labour Administration.

Mr. Willis: We were not here then.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member may not have been here, but some of his hon. Friends were here. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite find this power objectionable now, when it has been in operation for so long.

Sir M. Galpern: The reason that we find it so objectionable is that the whole purpose of this Bill is diametrically opposed to that of the one referred to.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member said that the words he seeks to delete are arrogant, and were words such as would issue from the mouth of a bully. All I can say is that they have been issuing from the mouths of hon. Members opposite, and that if we on this side are guilty of being bullies they are equally guilty. Theirs is an utterly nonsensical argument.
Let me explain the position. There may be an element of misunderstanding; I hope that there is. In the normal course of events no subsidy is payable to a local authority for houses which it acquires by purchase. An exception is made when a housing association house becomes vested in the local authority. The reason for that exception is that housing association houses are themselves subsidised, and the association providing subsidised houses is, in effect, thus supplementing the building programme of the local authority. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to continue the provisions of previous Acts, whereby, when such a house is sold or otherwise passes to the local authority, the subsidy may continue to be paid to the local authority and shall be retained


by it instead of being handed to the association.
I can assure the hon. Member that where a housing association house becomes vested in a local authority a payment to that authority, in lieu of subsidy, is likely to be made in virtually every case. In our opinion, however, it would be wrong to make it obligatory, as the Amendment seeks to do, for the Secretary of State to make a payment irrespective of the circumstances of the takeover or the purposes for which the local authority intended to use the house. We appear to differ only on that very small point.
It is conceivable that upon acquiring a house from a housing association a local authority would intend to use it to accommodate members of its own staff, or for some other purpose for which, as the hon. Member will appreciate, a subsidy is not payable. Surely he is not contending that in those circumstances a subsidy should be paid. It is only

logical, therefore, that before agreeing to the payment of a housing subsidy in respect of such a house the Secretary of State should have a similar discretion to that which he has in relation to new local authority houses, and should be able to decide whether a payment in lieu of subsidy should be made. This is really a very narrow point. The decision of the Government is reasonable, and I hope that for once the Opposition will try to understand why we have included these words. I understand why they do not like them, but the purpose is to give a discretion to the Secretary of State so that he shall not be obliged in every case—in some of which it might be improper to do so—to continue the payment of subsidy.

For these reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 174.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[5.41 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Curran, Charles
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Aitken, W. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hendry, Forbes


Allason, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Arbuthnot, John
do Ferranti, Basil
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hollingworth, John


Balniel, Lord
Doughty, Charles
Hopkins, Alan


Barber, Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, R. P.


Barlow, Sir John
du Cann, Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Barter, John
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Batsford, Brian
Eden, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Berkeley, Humphry
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bitten, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Errington, Sir Eric
James, David


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Jennings, J. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Farr, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Black, Sir Cyril
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bossom, Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Box, Donald
Foster, John
Kimball, Marcus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brewis, John
Freeth, Denzil
Leavey, J. A.


Brooman-White, R.
Gammans, Lady
Leburn, Gilmour


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
George J. C. (Pollok)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gilmour, Sir John
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Billiard, Denys
Glover, Sir Douglas
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longbottom, Charles


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Loveys, Walter H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Gower, Raymond
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Green, Alan
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Collard, Richard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin


Coulson, Michael
Hay, John
Maginnis, John E.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Sir John


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Marshall, Douglas




Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roes, Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mills, Stratton
Renton, David
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Miscampbell, N.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Morrison, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Turner, Colin


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nabarro, Gerald
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neave, Airey
Russell, Ronald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Noble, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Seymour, Leslie
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shaw, M.
Walder, David


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smithers, Peter
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Speir, Rupert
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Peel, John
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Perclval, Ian
Stodart, J. A,
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peyton, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wise, A. R.


Pott, Percivall
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Powell, Rt. Hon, J. Enoch
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Woodnutt, Mark


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Talbot, John E.
Woollam, John


Pym, Francis
Tapsell, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Ramsden, James
Teeling, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rawlinson, Peter
Temple, John M.
Mr. Whitelaw and




Mr. Michael Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold


Awbery, Stan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Healey, Denis
Oram, A. E.


Beaney, Alan
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Oswald, Thomas


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will


Blackburn, F,
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Padley, W. E.


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Holt, Arthur
Pargiter, G. A.


Boyden, James
Houghton, Douglas
Parker, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peart, Frederick


Callaghan, James
Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, Ernest


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, R. E.


Cliffe, Michael
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Randall, Harry


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reld, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, H.


Deer, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Diamond, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dodds, Norman
King, Dr. Horace
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Lawson, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Edward


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lubbock, Eric
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Finch, Harold
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Small, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, Julian


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gooch, E. G.
Marsh, Richard
Stones, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward
Taverne, D.







Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Warbey, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Weitzman, David
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winter-bottom, R. E.


Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, D. J. (Neath)



Timmons, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24.—(DETERMINATION OF UNFITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION.)

Mrs. Alice Cullen: I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out line 42 and to insert:
(g) a separate indoor water supply for each house.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston): It might be convenient if the two Amendments in page 21, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert
(h) a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom and at a wash-hand basin, and at a sink.
and in line 44, at end insert:
including a separate water closet for each house.
were discussed with this Amendment.

Mrs. Cullen: The items (a) to (k) in subsection (1) of this Clause were laid down many years ago and I think that we should set our sights higher in 1962. Can anyone say that it is wrong to insist on a separate indoor water supply for each house; or a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom or wash-hand basin, or even in a sink; or a separate water closet for each house? The houses in the constituency which I have the honour to represent never had these facilities, and if the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment they will stand condemned by public opinion throughout Scotland as a Government who are interested not in house building but merely in saving money.

Mr. Galbraith: I am very surprised to see that there are apparently so few Members on the benches opposite who wish to speak—

Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Sir Robert. On two occasions the Under-Secretary has made that sort of remark. Are you aware, as the occupant of the Chair, that we are working to a Guillotine Motion

and that we have to get these matters discussed as quickly as we can?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Galbraith: I merely thought that if other Members wished to speak and were waiting for me to speak first, it would be better if it were the other way round.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We thought that this Amendment was so reasonable that the Under-Secretary would agree to it.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Member cannot have been in the Committee. If he had been, he would realise that I am not going to accept it.
The three Amendments to which the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) has referred so movingly all propose to amend the list of items in Clause 24 (1) to be taken into consideration in determining whether a house is unfit. Their effect is, first, to delete item (g) "adequacy and accessibility of water supply" and to substitute "a separate indoor water supply for each house"; secondly, to delete item (h) "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences" and to substitute "a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom and at a wash-hand basin, and at a sink"; thirdly, to amend "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences" to read "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences including a separate water closet for each house".
The discussion on a similar Amendment in Committee showed that, as a matter of drafting, the words proposed on that occasion by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) did not fit very neatly into the pattern of the Clause. That is not a reason for rejecting the Amendment out of hand because, of course, drafting deficiencies can be put right. There seems, however, to be some misunderstanding


among hon. Members opposite about what Clause 24 sets out to do. There also seems to be some difference of opinion as to what they want it to do. On the one hand the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North seemed to agree in Committee that the object of the Clause was to set out matters to which a local authority should have regard in deciding whether a house is unfit. That is our view of what the Clause is intended to do. On the other hand, the hon. Member for the Gorbals seemed just now to be tempted by the idea that a house might be condemned, more or less automatically, if it lacked one of these specified amenities. She used the words, "We should insist".

Hon. Members: What is wrong with that.

Mr. Galbraith: If that is what hon. Members opposite really want, it is a very different matter from what the hon. Lady was proposing. It is a departure from the whole conception of Clause 24 and the existing provisions which it replaces in Section 184 (2) of the 1950 Act. That Section states that in determining whether a house is fit, a local authority are to have regard to the extent to which it falls short of the standards set by the local building regulations. Clause 24 retains the same principle. It requires local authorities to have regard to certain factors, and items (a) to (k) in the Clause are specific features to which they are required to have regard. None of these items by itself decides whether a house is fit or unfit. I think that the hon. Lady, in moving the Amendment, indicated that if a house did not have, for example, an internal lavatory it should automatically be considered unfit. What matters is whether a house is so far defective in one or more of these respects that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.

6.0 p.m.

Mrs. Cullen: We have had so many houses of this type in the Gorbals, which were slums as soon as they were built, that we want to get rid of them all.

Mr. Galbraith: I am absolutely with the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, certainly. I am convinced that—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is a "proper square".

Mr. Galbraith: I am not a "proper square". I am a round peg in a round hole.
As it stands, the Clause sets out eleven items to which a local authority shall have regard. It does not say what standard the local authority should look for under each of these headings. For example, there are references to the general state of repair and to the adequacy of the water supply and to the sanitary conveniences. Clearly, under each of these headings it would be possible to give fuller guidance about the particular requirements to be looked for; no doubt this is what the hon. Lady had in mind in relation to the items she was discussing.
There are two points I wish to make. First, it does not seem right to go into detail on these items only and not on the others. Surely structural stability, to take one example, is no less important than whether there is a bath on the premises. The lighting and the amount of air are important, but we do not go into detail about them. Why, therefore, should we go into detail about sanitation?
Secondly, it is not really necessary to invite a local authority to have regard specifically to the presence or absence of certain amenities. It comes strangely from hon. Members opposite to suggest that local authorities do not know, without being told in a Statute, that a house without a separate w.c. or water supply falls short of adequate modern standards. In considering whether a house is unfit, a local authority would automatically award a good mark if it had a hot water supply and a bad mark if it had not. Those hon. Members opposite, who have had wide experience of local authority work, know this very well. Local authorities know what a good house is like and, by comparison, when a house does not measure up to the proper standards. I therefore suggest that it is not necessary to specify these items in the Clause.
I assure the Committee, however, that when the Bill becomes law we shall take the opportunity to give guidance in a covering circular about the way in which local authorities should exercise their


powers and particularly about the importance of certain specific items. But it would still remain the case that no single item would determine whether a house was or was not unfit. The local authority would still have to decide—I think it is right that it should—whether, having regard to the condition of the house in each of these various respects, it was or was not reasonably suitable for occupation. With this explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that I have made the matter clearer to her and will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendments.

Miss Herbison: I am quite certain that the brief which has been read out by the Under-Secretary could not possibly have been supplied by any official from the Department of Health—it is so terribly poor that it must be the Minister's own brief. We were bedevilled during the Committee stage proceedings by the Minister reading a brief which gave answers to points that we had not raised but which his officials thought that we might raise.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the first part of this Clause, which states:
In determining for any of the purposes of the Act of 1950 whether a house is unfit for human habitation regard shall be had"—
I wish to repeat that—
regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters …".
Then we are given a list of the matters to which the local authority must have regard before it decides that a house is unfit for human habitation. Hon. Members on this side of the House looked at these matters and decided that, in 1962, it was time that local authorities had regard to certain specific matters when deciding whether a house was unfit for human habitation.
The Under-Secretary said that it was not right to go into details on these matters since we had not gone into details on other matters. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the details which we have gone into on these three matters, I can assure him that during the Committee stage proceedings in another place we shall see to it that similar details are provided for the other matters, if that is the main objection from the hon. Gentleman. He could help us to ensure that the kind of

details which he thinks should go in for all, or for none, shall go in for all.

Mr. Galbraith: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not wish to be unfair. I was suggesting that if we put in all the details for some matters we ought to put in details for the lot, and that if we did that we should not have the faith in the discretion and judgment of local authorities which the Opposition is always suggesting that the Government ought to have.

Miss Herbison: I think that is the "phoniest" argument which we have heard in the whole of these discussions. Hon. Members on this side of the House regard members of local authorities as responsible people. We know that local authorities will have regard to these matters either as they appear in the Bill now or as they would appear were the Clause amended as we desire.
I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) about houses in Glasgow and to say that there are similar houses in the Highlands and in our Scottish villages. There are many families in Scotland who have to share the use of one water closet.

Mrs. Cullen: In my constituency sixteen tenants have to share one water closet.

Miss Herbison: Is that what the Under-Secretary and the Tory Government consider to be correct? If not, they have no argument at all for not putting specifically in the Statute that regard must be had to the necessity for each family to have a water closet.
The second item relates a water supply for each house. I have constituents in houses in my own village where six people have to share one sink on a landing and one water supply. In some parts of the Highlands conditions are much worse than that. Is it wrong that in 1962 we should ask that when a local authority is considering whether a house should be condemned one of the specific needs which it ought to take into account is whether there is a separate water supply for each family. If the Government think it wrong that that should be so, it shows just how little they think about the needs of our people.
What about a hot water supply? Is there any hon. Member opposite who does not consider a hot water supply an absolute necessity in his own home?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: They are always in hot water in any case.

Miss Herbison: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee think the same, but we also think that conditions should be the same in all the homes in Scotland, and that is where we differ from hon. Members opposite.
What is wrong in putting into this Clause a reference to the need for a hot water supply in the bathroom or for a shower, or a sink? The hon. Gentleman has given no valid reason, but places the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of members of local authorities. If we could raise the sights of local authorities a little higher, some local authorities, particularly Tory-controlled local authorities—might feel a greater urgency to get rid of houses which we consider unfit for habitation. Unless the Under-Secretary will state that he is ready to accept the Amendment, we shall have no alternative but to take it to a division.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said in her reference to houses outside urban areas as well as those in them. She rightly referred to houses in the Highlands and Islands which still not only have no hot water supply, but have no communal piped cold water supply.
I think that this Amendment is right. As my hon. Friend said, we should set our sights higher. It seems that the lower the standards that are set, the more likely are they to be completely ignored. The wrong type of local authority is only too glad to escape obligations which are not clearly defined and which it is not strictly enough obliged to apply. The Minister as well as the local authority has a duty. He has a duty to see that the statutory obligations of local authorities are carried out by those local authorities. Where they are not carried out, he cannot escape condemnation for the local authority's failure. He has a financial respon- 
Sibility and also a general statutory responsibility.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has direct responsibility for many hundreds of houses on Department of Agriculture estates in the Highlands and Islands many of which are still with no sort of water supply—let alone a hot water supply, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) referred to as an absolute minimum necessity. The Minister has been shirking his duty and continues to do so in not making the necessary money for communal water supplies available, without which local authorities cannot satisfy the demands of the Acts which are already in being, apart from what we ask in these Amendments, and provide piped water supplies to individual tenants of rural houses.
The Under-Secretary asked that the Government should not be pressed to give any more detail in defining what local authorities have to have regard to in considering the possibility of having to condemn a house or impose a closing order. With what is already in the Bill we have enough to condemn certain local authorities, and hundreds—indeed thousands—of houses on their failure to satisfy the requirements about adequacy and accessibility of water supply, plus adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences. A closing order could almost certainly now be put on thousands of houses in the rural areas of Scotland. The Minister must know that that is true.
That is largely because many local authorities have not carried out their existing duties and statutory obligations to provide a water supply, and Governments have not tried very hard to see that those local authorities do carry out their obligations. For example, the Minister has been writing to local authorities in Inverness-shire. Those authorities wanted, however belatedly, to get on with their plans for water supplies, which were almost ready; but, because in July last they were not ready in detail—the detail which the Under-Secretary so much abhors in these Amendments—they were told by the Secretary of State that their schemes would come under the latest economy axe. The result is that in respect of the southern area of South Uist, which


is so popular an island for rocket ranges and defence installations of all kinds, the county council has been told that because it had not the last dot and stroke written into its schemes, those water schemes would be put off indefinitely.
One result is that a group of county council houses, in order to satisfy the law, have to be tacked on to an already inadequate school water supply. The school water supply is itself so inadequate that there was a panic some time ago over an outbreak of polio. Some people thought that indirectly, if not directly, the outbreak was due to the poor and inadequate water supply of the school. Yet this water supply has to be tacked on to a new group of houses. It is absolutely unpardonable. For any local authority to get into that situation is to condemn itself out of hand for its failure and delays.
The Minister has an obligation to see that local authorities carry out statutory obligations in regard to water supply. The Labour Government after the war insisted that in every new house in the crofting areas provision must be made at the time of building for a bathroom, a kitchen, a kitchen sink and plumbing throughout the house and for waste disposal, so that, immediately a water supply was available the water could be laid on. All the things which are demanded in these Amendments ought, then, to be provided, not only in the City of Glasgow, but also in outlying rural parts of the country. That was all provided for specifically in the first rural Housing Act brought in by the Labour Government after the war.
6.15 p.m.
I do not see what the Minister is so frightened about. The Under-Secretary poured cold water on hot water. All he achieved was to raise a little steam, but it was not enough to take him very far in the right direction. I do not see how any hon. Member can conscientiously say that while he at home enjoys hot baths and a water supply he is prepared to condemn other people to remain in houses which do not have the simple ordinary amenities of civilised living in 1962. I do not think any hon. Member opposite is below the poverty level. How, then, they can decently

defend the situation as it is now beats me. Of all the impertinence and hypocrisy to say that other less fortunate people should be without water supplies, and that hundreds of housewives in the Islands and Highlands and elsewhere in rural areas should have to go often for a mile—that is no exaggeration—carrying buckets of water in order that they might wash. This is not a fantasy or the history of past centuries, but is true now. In many places, the situation is exactly as it was 2,000 years ago, with people still grubbing in holes in the ground to get water for washing and cooking and drinking.
The more we fail strictly to apply the Acts, the more will recalcitrant local authorities show their unconcern for the plight in which many people still live, the plight of thousands of people in the Highlands and Islands. The Minister has his Ml responsibility for that. He and the Secretary of State have done more in the last few years to prevent even slow local authorities getting on with the supply of water than have any Ministers before them. From 1945 onwards there was more progress with provision of water supplies in rural areas than ever before; but that has all been slowed down and now people in some areas are looking to 1970 or 1972 before they will be able to have the simple benison of cold water. The Secretary of State ought not to look so pleased about that; he ought to be ashamed of it.

Mr. Hendry: I say at once that I am absolutely in sympathy with the Amendment—I think I speak for every horn. Member on this side of the Committee—but I think that the Amendment would add nothing to the Bill and that the proposal is to a large extent impracticable. I think it tragic that in this twentieth century there should be any house which has not a separate hot water supply. I think it lamentable that there should be any house without a bath, and absolutely deplorable that there should be any house without a separate water closet.
The Amendment refers to a separate water closet for every house. I would go further. If we were being ideal, I would say a separate water closet in every house, but these are ideals. They are things we should all like to see, yet what we have to deal with is not the ideal, but the very practical situation


in Scotland at present. These are the things we should like. Certainly if there is a house or building, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) said, which has one water closet for fifteen tenants that certainly comes within the definition of paragraph (g) of the subsection,
adequacy and accessibility of water supply.
That house ought to be condemned out of hand.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is a man of legal experience. The Clause says that the local authority, shall have regard to these items. If there is any item not mentioned there, is not the local authority entitled to say that Parliament has asked it not to pay special regard to such items? Therefore, any item not in the category is not within the category to which the local authority shall pay regard. If the Amendment is rejected is it not possible for someone in a local authority to argue that Parliament has said that the local authority shall not have regard to the things which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends?

Mr. Hendry: The right hon. Gentleman has underlined from the other point of view what his hon. and right hon. Friends have said during these discussions—that certain people do not trust local authorities. He does not trust them.

Mr. Woodburn: That is not an answer to the legal question.

Mr. Hendry: We are considering a practical question—whether a house is suitable for human habitation. It is deplorable if any house has not these amenities. But all hon. Members admit that there are many thousands of houses without them which are in other respects good houses. The Committee should encourage the Government of the day, irrespective of party, to take steps to bring that situation to an end by providing these amenities where the houses are otherwise good. In other parts of the Bill that is precisely what is done—by making it easier for people to take advantage of improvement grants and of other provisions.
I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of the definition in Clause 10 whereby a house is defined as

any residential accommodation provided for occupation by not more than two persons and equipped with cooking facilities for the exclusive use of those persons, notwithstanding that it is not equipped with facilities of other kinds for such exclusive use.
That provides for houses for old people, where it is not considered necessary that they should have an exclusive bathroom provided that a communial bathroom and other communal facilities are available in the building.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member is an ex-town clerk. Having heard him give that definition and realising the type of advice which he might give to a local authority, I think that it becomes increasingly obvious that these provisions ought to be included in the Bill.

Mr. Hendry: I should not have given way had I not expected a more sensible intervention, as is customary, from the hon. Member.
We are trying to produce a practical code for the guidance of local authorities, but hon. Members opposite are tying local authorities down to provisions which are in no way practicable. I hope that on reconsideration they will withdraw the Amendment and leave the Clause as it stands. Personally, I am sorry that the Clause had been introduced, because Section 184 of the 1950 Act gives local authorities a very good standard of comparison—a comparison with the type of house which they are approving at present. Every hon. Member will agree that it would be intolerable if any house being built today lacked these amenities. But the Government have decided to give further guidance to local authorities by laying down these carefully-worded standards.
It seems to me that the Amendment adds nothing to what is in the Clause and that the Clause gives a good code for circumstances varying from the Gorbals in Glasgow to the Western Isles and the part of the country which I represent. The Amendment is ill-thought-out. Hon. Members opposite should take it back and think about it again. I am certain that if they did so they would be able on another occasion to produce an Amendment of a much more satisfactory kind This Amendment should be withdrawn.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I do not want to keep the Committee long but I felt that the kind of speech


made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) ought to be answered. In his Dr. Jekyll form we heard his idealism and the sort of thing which we ought to have in houses, such as an inside toilet in every house. But the hon. Member then went on in his other guise of Dr. Hyde to tell us that this was not practicable. That is the nub of the argument. We are seeking to provide a goad not only on local authorities but also on the Scottish Office. If there is any subject on which the Government ought to be prodded it is that of Scottish housing. If we pass legislation which irritates them and forces them to grant a bigger housing programme for local authorities, all the better for the people of Scotland.
It is wrong that in 1962 we should be unwilling to write into legislation an exact provision of this nature. The Under-Secretary of State's suggestion that these amenities are details would be laughable if it were not so tragic. That he should consider the provision of an inside toilet and a piped water supply as details in the code of living is a sad state of affairs.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I said that these words were spelling out what paragraph (g) means. When we talk about the
adequacy and accessibility of water supply",
that is general, and it is unnecessary also to say that there should be an internal water supply.

Dr. Mabon: All hon. Members have had the experience of people coming to them and raising matters which they subsequently take up with the sanitary inspector who, even though he has as much sympathy as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West and feels that a house should be condemned, is always able to fall back on the law and to say, "By law I am not required to condemn it". There are all sorts of practical reasons advanced. Normally the local authority cannot provide a new house or is in great difficulty in rehousing people. Or he may say, "I have been given a quota of houses which I may condemn and I cannot exceed it". He is able to take refuge in laws which are ill-defined like this and which enable him to say, "This good family must remain in this inadequate house".
This is the point which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West must face. If he wants legislation which a local authority, either through negligence or because it does not want to spend the money, can use as an excuse for not providing further housing for Scotland, he should leave the Clause ill-defined. But if he accepts the need of the people of Scotland and wishes to meet it, he should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: We are perhaps generating a little unnecessary heat on the Amendment. I understand exactly the feelings of hon. Members opposite; they feel so strongly that an internal water supply, a bath and a private w.c. are essential for living a decent life today that they wish these items to be specifically mentioned in the Bill. I agree with them absolutely about the need for these items—and I want to make that clear, because it seemed that there was a danger that the Conservative Party might be branded as a party which did not think that these things were necessary.

Mr. Willis: It is true. They do not think them necessary.

Mr. Galbraith: It is not true. If the point in moving the Amendment is to make that charge, then it is a purely political Amendment. I understood that hon. Members opposite were concerned about the condition of houses. But it now seems that they are more concerned with trying to put before the country a false image of the Conservative Party. I agree with them absolutely about the need for these items which are specified in the Amendment, but I do not see why they should be mentioned more specifically than, for example, details about the amount of light or air or the state of repair. After all, consideration of the adequacy—

6.30 p.m.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Sir Robert do you realise that we are working under the Guillotine? Is it right to have needless repetition? The Under-Secretary is making the same speech.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry if I am offending the hon. Lady. I did not want to rise at the beginning, but she forced


me to my feet at the beginning. I therefore think that it is only right that I should reply to this. I am not making the same speech. Hon. Members opposite may think that I am making the same speech, but I am not. Considerations of the adequacy and accessibility of water supply must include the questions whether the supply is indoors and separate and whether such a supply could reasonably be provided.

Mr. Willis: I have heard all this.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member says that he has heard all this, but it obviously has not sunk in. That is why I am saying it again. Hon. Members opposite are always saying that the Government do not trust the local authorities. Here it seems to me that it is they who are not trusting the local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) rather let the cat out of the bag when he referred to what he called the wrong sort of local authorities.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Certainly.

Mr. Galbraith: That implies that the Opposition do not trust the local authorities. All through the Bill they have been criticising the Government for what they call not trusting the local authorities. I maintain that the local authorities do not need to have everything spelt out for them. They know very well when the state of repair is bad. They know when the lighting is not sufficient. Equally well, they know when the water supply is adequate. Adequate means whether it is inside or whether it is not.
I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I emphasise that this is not because I do not value internal plumbing most highly. I value it as highly as hon. Members opposite value it, perhaps even more highly. I value internal plumbing as highly as I value a good state of repair. I cannot accept the Amendment simply because it is unnecessary to specify these matters in detail, and I prefer, and the Government prefer, unlike the Opposition, to trust the local authorities to do the job within the general guidance contained in the Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not want to take up any time, but I must point out that the Under-Secretary has not treated this

matter seriously. It has been suggested that there are two alternatives—either to have a general description covering anything like the existing standard of local authority housing, or to specify the things to which local authorities must have regard. The Government have stated a a number of matters to which local authorities must pay regard, but local authorities are entitled to think that matters which are not specified need not be taken into consideration. The Under-Secretary, by refusing to accept the Amendment, is lending not only his own authority but also the authority of Parliament to the view that local authorities are not bound to pay attention to matters which are not stated in the Clause.

Mr. Brewis: What is important in this matter is to get the amenities into these houses and install sanitary fittings. [Interruption.] We did just that in the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1949, which dealt with the standard grant.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. We are under the Guillotine and my colleagues are doing their utmost to get through the Bill. Are we to be all the time held up by hon. Members opposite rising and trying to spin out time?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already said that that is not a point of order. If an hon. Member on either side rises to speak and remains in order, he is entitled to speak and no point of order arises.

Miss Herbison: Sir Robert, may I put this point to you and ask for your advice? Is it possible for me to move the Closure on this Amendment? I ask for advice.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady can move the Closure. That is not to say that it will be accepted.

Miss Herbison: Sir Robert, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

The Deputy-Chairman: I shall not accept that Motion at this moment.

Mr. Brewis: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) should be a little more patient. It is important to get the amenities into houses and not condemn houses just because they have not got them.

Mr. Ross: Would not the best and quickest way of getting amenities into houses be to condemn houses which have not got them?

Mr. Brewis: Then what would happen to the inhabitants? My area has a very great problem indeed. In many cases there is not a water supply, so not much can be done. If a house is in good structural order and not liable to be condemned under paragraphs (a) to (k), I cannot see that we are doing a service by condemning it if it has not got a bath, if a bath cannot be installed because there is no water supply. In my area one could condemn a great number of houses. The agricultural cottages would come under two of these paragraphs. I cannot see that the Amendment would take the matter very much further.

Mr. J. Robertson: To listen to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) one would think that the provisions in the Clause would cover all

circumstances, but what are the facts. In Paisley—I am now reading from the last survey in Paisley—there are 8,514 tenement houses. Over 7,000 share external w.c.s. There are 8,319 houses with no baths. There are 5,000 houses with no hot water. Three thousand houses have gas heaters. Three thousand have no sculleries. Eight thousand, five hundred have no larders. I could go on. These houses would be condemned under almost every paragraph in the Clause, but they are not being condemned. They are considered to be fit for habitation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the Committee is ready to come to a decision.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 172.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[6.37 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Curran, Charles
Hobson, Sir John


Aitken, W. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holland, Philip


Allason, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hollingworth, John


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hopkins, Alan


Ashton, Sir Hubert
de Ferranti, Basil
Hornby, R. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Balniel, Lord
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Barber, Anthony
Doughty, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Barlow, Sir John
Drayson, G. B.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Barter, John
du Cann, Edward
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Duncan, Sir James
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
Eden, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Berkeley, Humphry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jennings, J. C.


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bishop, F. P.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Black, Sir Cyril
Finlay, Graeme
Kershaw, Anthony


Bossom, Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, Marcus


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Box, Donald
Foster, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Leavey, J. A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Freeth, Denzil
Leburn, Gilmour


Brewis, John
Gammans, Lady
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Brooman-White, R.
Clover, Sir Douglas
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Goodhart, Philip
Longbottom, Charles


Bryan, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Longden, Gilbert


Bullard, Denys
Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Chataway, Christopher
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hastings, Stephen
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Collard, Richard
Hay, John
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maginnis, John E.


Cooper, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Sir John


Corfield, F. V.
Hendry, Forbes
Marshall, Douglas


Costain, A. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.




Mills, Stratton
Renton, David
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Miscampbell, N.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Morrison, John
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Nabarro, Gerald
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turner, Colin


Neave, Airey
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Russell, Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Seymour, Leslie
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shaw, M.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shepherd, William
Walder, David


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Wall, Patrick


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smithers, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Peel, John
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Whitelaw, William


Peyton, John
Speir, Rupert
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pott, Percivall
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Stodart, J. A.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Pym, Francis
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Talbot, John E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Ramsden, James
Tapsell, Peter
Woollam, John


Rawlinson, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Teeling, Sir William



Rees, Hugh
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. Noble and Mr. Frank Pearson




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, Stan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parker, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Benson, Sir George
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James
Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, Harry


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Callaghan, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reid, William


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Ross, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Small, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Edelman, Maurice
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas


Evans, Albert
Manuel, Archie
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Stones, William


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Fletcher, Eric
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, J, J.
Swain, Thomas


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold
Thorpe, Jeremy


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Timmons, John


Gourlay, Harry
Oliver, G. H.
Wainwright, Edwin


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Warbey, William


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Wells, Percy (Faversham)







Whitlock, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wilkins, W. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Willey, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)



Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Winterbottom, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Irving.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29.—(DEFAULT POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO RENTS.)

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 25, line 43, at the end to insert:
(4) Subsection (5) of section seventy-three of the Act of 1950 shall have effect as if there were added thereto the words "provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent".
Section 73 (5) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, states:
The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.
If this Amendment were accepted, that provision would continue:
provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent".
We discussed in Committee two other Amendments which sought to ensure that the Secretary of State, whom we consider is taking unwarranted powers under this Clause, would at least use those powers not only where a local authority was charging rents that he considered to be too low but where a local authority were charging rents that were excessive. The Under-Secretary tried to make the case that those powers are already there—that the Secretary of State could intervene where a local authority was charging too high a rent—but the whole tenor of the debate on Second Reading and the whole tenor of the debate in Committee has quite clearly shown that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking in this Bill, the powers that he already has under a local Measure of, I think, 1947, and those he has under Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act, are regarded by him only in the sense that they shall be used to deal with local authorities that are charging rents that are too low.
We on this side want to ensure beyond any doubt at all that the Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where a local authority is charging rents that are too high. One local authority might be considered to be charging

excessive rents. The tenants in another authority might consider that their rents are also too high. Some local authority rents might be considered by any reasonable person as being too low. Despite that, the Amendment is designed to deal solely with excessive rents. In Committee last month the Under-Secretary said:
It would follow that if the rents were found to be too high the Secretary of State, under power given him in this Clause, could make a rent scheme laying down lower rents in exactly the same way as he could lay down higher rents.
The hon. Gentleman continued:
It is not for the Secretary of State to say what a reasonable rent is … for any particular area.
All through the Bill we have been puzzled by the inability of the Under-Secretary to tell us what the Government believe to be a reasonable rent. The Under-Secretary added:
At the moment, it does not seem to him that the situation in Milngavie warrants his interference. That does not, however, stop residents in the town who feel aggrieved from making a complaint and giving my right hon. Friend the opportunity to consider the matter further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th March, 1962; c. 974, 976, 978.]
That remark must have led the Committee to believe that no complaint whatever had been made by any tenant in Milngavie to the Secretary of State. That is just not the case. Information has been supplied to me—it came only yesterday—from a tenant in Milngavie who read a report of the debate. Perhaps I should add that we took care to ensure that he read the whole of the debate. My correspondent states that in Committee I quoted from the White Paper the figures of the average standard rent in Milngavie which, according to the White Paper, is £69 16s. 2d. Even that figure was 20 per cent. above the next highest standard rent being charged by any local authority in Scotland. My correspondent goes on to say that that figure of £69 16s. 2d. has been challenged time and again by the tenants of Milngavie.
At a ratepayers' meeting last week the town treasurer made a clear statement that the average standard rent in Milngavie was not £69 16s. 2d. but


£80 19s. 8d. Since this information comes from the town treasurer, does the Minister consider this—and I am citing Milngavie as an example because other local authorities may be in this position in the future—to be a reasonable rent? If one takes the average gross annual value, which the Secretary of State thinks is a reasonable rent, it works out at £53. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an average standard rent of £80 19s. 8d. is excessive? My hon. Friends certainly do. Referring to our proceedings in Committee, my correspondent states:
. . Mr. Galbraith gave an assurance that Mr. Maclay had powers to reduce rents.
The letter points out that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) asked the Secretary of State in November last year if he was prepared to use his power regarding Milngavie. At that time the Secretary of State replied, "No, Sir." My correspondent points out that the Under-Secretary of State suggested that any dissatisfied resident could complain to the Secretary of State and continues:
In November the local Tenants Association did so complain and were informed that the Secretary of State was satisfied with the position in Milngavie.
It is clear, therefore, that this very high standard rent in Milngavie is not considered by the Secretary of State to be excessive, and my hon. Friends and I want to ensure, by the Amendment, that consideration will be given to this matter.
We have made it clear that we do not want the Secretary of State to interfere, but if he is going to interfere with local authorities in one way we want some protection for people such as those living in Milngavie and others whose rents may be raised to the same degree. If the Under-Secretary today insists that his right hon. Friend already has power to do this, he should have no hesitation about accepting the Amendment which will spell out his powers. If he accepts it we will believe that he is interested in these people who are forced to pay excessive rents, just as interested as he is in those who are paying what he considers to be too low rents. All ratepayers should be considered by the Secretary of State. At present the right hon.

Gentleman seems to consider every ratepayer but the one who lives in a local authority house.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I do not wish to detain the Committee but this is a matter in which every hon. Member should be interested. It is one which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has described as a topic which interests hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland. There was considerable controversy and genuine disagreement on this subject in Committee. I would venture to say, however, that all hon. Members opposite agree on one point: that quite a lot of rents—and I put it no higher than that—have been too low. They would also agree, I think, with the utterances of some of their hon. Friends—among them the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my own constituent, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), each of whom has gone perfectly openly on record in the last few years as saying that they do not disagree that some rents in Scotland should be raised.
7.0 p.m.
Where there is tremendous room for honest disagreement is on the question of what is a reasonable rent level. What seems reasonable to some seems out of the question to others, and what struck me as being two extreme examples are worthy of consideration. The first I heard on a television programme at Christmas time, when a Glasgow town councillor, an Edinburgh town councillor, Dr. Whitley of St. Giles' Cathedral, and a chairman were discussing the question of rents in Scotland. I have with me the transcript which the B.B.C. has sent me of an extract which interested me and from which I should like to quote.
The chairman said
Now, the average rent in Scotland just now is about 10s. 1d. Is this not"—

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. You will be aware, Sir William, that the Amendment is a limited one dealing with powers which the Secretary of State should take to deal with excessive rents. So far, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has been dealing with what he considers to be low rents.

The Chairman: I appreciate the point of order. I have been listening carefully to the debate and there are limits beyond which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman will not go.

Mr. Stodart: I am trying to show, and hope within the next twenty seconds to show, what one person thinks is an excessive rent. The chairman said:
Is this not in fact too low …?
Bailie David Gibson, who, I think, is the housing convener of Glasgow, said:
Surety not. Is there something very wrong with a thing because it's cheap? Does it need to be dearer? The … first essential, do we not agree that it's a good thing from the health point of view to have a cheap food policy, to have a cheap housing policy, to have a cheap policy for health, health services and so on? As a matter of fact, you make them so cheap you make them free which is a wise thing.
Those were the words of the housing convener of Glasgow Town Council. Obviously, if Bailie David Gibson considers it a good thing if rents were free, even 5s. or 10s. 1d. would be regarded by him as grossly excessive. I merely say this as an illustration of how difficult it is to arrive at what is a reasonable rent.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is the hon. Member aware that he promised to give a quotation that would show what somebody thought was an excessive rent? Bailie David Gibson did not say that a rent of 10s. 1d. was excessive, as the hon. Member will see if he looks again at his quotation.

Mr. Stodart: This makes it very clear how difficult it is to arrive at what is a fair rent.
If one is to find out what is an excessive rent, we also have to find out what is a fair rent. At the other end of the scale, as one who is several benches behind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has not managed to satisfy the Committee about what he considers to be a reasonable rent, I am happy to say that I consider a reasonable rent to be somewhere between the suggestion of Bailie David Gibson and the highest that I have been able to find, and that is the example of a council which deducts one-seventh of a person's income for rent, excluding rates. That seems to me to be excessive. I make no bones about saying so. The answer lies

somewhere in between, possibly round about the half-way mark.

Mr. Dempsey: What is it?

Mr. Stodart: The half-way mark would be round about 7 per cent.
In trying to arrive at what is a fair rent beyond which the rent would be excessive, one has to try to take yardsticks and make comparisons. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said in Committee that one must judge on rents being paid elsewhere and at other times. One yardstick which is not unfair is the ratio of rent to earnings today and pre-war.
In 1939, rent was an average of 5s. and earnings averaged 69s. Funnily enough, that ratio was exactly 7 per cent. Today, average rent is 10s. 1d. The figure for average earnings in Scotland is a matter of great dispute, but looking at it in its most favourable light, it is am average of £12 a week, the figure which has been agreed by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: But the cost of living has gone up since 1939.

Mr. Stodart: The ratio of rent to earnings today has sunk from 7 per cent. to 4 per cent. If one calculated 7 per cent. of £12 today, what I think would be a reasonable rent on average is about 16s. 9d. to 17s. a week.

Mr. Gourlay: Surely, the hon. Member is trying to colour the argument because when he compares pre-war rent with present-day rent he is not giving the whole picture. He should say what it costs a person to live in a house and compare rent and rates pre-war with rent and rates today. Those are the comparative figures and not solely rent.

Mr. Stodart: I do not propose to develop this argument, but the hon. Member will find that even if he takes rent and rates as a percentage of earnings, it will not help his case very much. In any event, I do not accept the argument that one is bound to take rates into consideration, because I cannot see why the householder in a corporation house should not face up to the rates. For example, the rating in Edinburgh includes 1s. 3d. for the health services. 1s. 4d. for housing, 1s. 7d. for cleansing


and 13s. for education. Surely, all these things are not to be tied together with rent, but must be regarded separately.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. I must again call notice, Sir William, to the fact that we are working under a Guillotine, not of our seeking, but of the seeking of hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the points again being made by the horn. Member are as far away from the Amendment as they possibly can be.

The Chairman: The Amendment deals with excessive rents. Therefore, it would seem to be quite in order to argue what is or is not an excessive rent. In so far as the hon. Member uses that as his argument, he is in order.

Miss Herbison: Further to the point of order. When I rose to my feet, the hon. Member was telling us what part of the rates—not rents—in Edinburgh went for health and what part went for anything else. It seems to me to be wrong that our time should be used for these purposes when it is so limited.

The Chairman: Both sides of the Committee come into this. I heard the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) specifically raise the matter of rates besides rent, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) responded. I am sure, however, that the Committee appreciates the situation and that no time will be unnecessarily wasted.

Mr. Stodart: I thank you, Sir William, for forgiving my following the trail laid by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay).
My only further point is that as the gap widens between money earned and rent paid, it inevitably means that there must be an increased subvention from the rates. That is inevitable. The City Treasurer of Edinburgh has told us that 200,000 ratepayers there are helping to pay the costs of maintaining 35,000 council houses.
We often hear stories about very wealthy council house tenants. These stories always reach the headlines, and for that reason it is clear that these people form a very small minority. But there is no doubt—I have many examples of this—that many people in

my constituency living in their own houses are less well off than certain tenants living in council houses. There is without doubt an injustice being perpetrated in that respect.

Mr. Ross: That applies to the farming subsidies, too.

Mr. Stodart: It is most unfair for the hon. Gentleman to try to divert me into discussing agricultural matters.

Mr. James McInnes: On a point of order. Since the start of the hon. Member's speech right up to the present moment, he has adduced an argument on low rents. He has just said that the Edinburgh City Treasurer has to find a subvention because of the low rent policy in that town. Every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered has had absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment, which is concerned with excessive rents.

The Chairman: Of course, there is a connection between a rent being high and a rent being low, but I remind the Committee that the words of the Amendment to which we must try to adhere as closely as possible are
provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent".
That must be the criterion by which I judge whether what an hon. Member is saying is in order.

Mr. Stodart: I think that I have convinced you, Sir William, that, before one can decide what is an excessive rent, one must have some idea about what is a reasonable rent. I have given my idea of what is a reasonable rent.

Mr. Willis: What is it?

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I dealt with that matter. That is his loss—and, of course, mine.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has given a yardstick by which he thinks rents should be judged. He must, therefore, concede that excessive rents are being charged. My question to him is this: if he is in favour of the Secretary of State intervening to raise rents which by his standards are low, is he in favour of the Secretary of State intervening to lower rents which by his standards are high?

Mr. Stodart: I agree that logic certainly demands that investigations should be made.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) did not address his argument very closely to the Amendment. That was not very surprising, because throughout the Committee stage we repeatedly asked the Minister and hon. Members opposite what they meant by "a reasonable rent". It is true that there can be arguments about what is an excessively low rent, what is an excessively high rent and what is a reasonable rent, but we must take the Government's view as expressed in the Second Reading debate and in Committee.
This is the first time that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has ventured into a discussion about what is a reasonable rent. He never referred to a rent of 7 per cent. of a person's income in Committee, as far as I recollect. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was much more specific. In Committee, I quoted what the hon. Member said on Second Reading, which was this:
I suggest that my right hon. Friend might very well have laid down as a suitable standard the gross annual value fixed this year by the local assessor in each local authority area.
He then went on—and these are the relevant words—
Personally, I do not think even that is half enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November. 1962: Vol. 649. c. 1444.]
In other words, the hon. Gentleman thinks that a reasonable rent is about £100 a year.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West thinks that a reasonable rent is 7 per cent. of a person's income. It has been said that rents in Milngavie are roughly £80 a year. Therefore, according to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, rents in Milngavie are not excessive. Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West agree with that? Will he rise to his feet and assert that rents in Milngavie are not excessive? I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of answering. It appears that he is not willing to do so.
Hon. Members opposite always talk as though all rents in Scotland were

unreasonably low. What we are seeking to do in this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to take power to deal with rents which are excessively high. It is interesting that right hon. and hon. Members opposite always refer to excessively low rents in connection with local authority tenants. But the Government connive at providing people with houses at no rent at all. They happen to be grace and favour houses.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now in serious danger of going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Hamilton: I was about to say that one could not call that an excessive rent. If hon. Members opposite want to tackle the rent problem, they should start much nearer home. Why pick on local authority tenants?
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West gave us the usual story about the poverty-stricken people living in private houses subsidising the local authority tenant who has two cars standing in the street outside his house. What about the poor tenant who is subsidising the wealthy farmers, some of whom are sitting on the benches opposite and who are drawing subsidies? No question of other poorer people subsidising them is raised. I am much poorer than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, yet I am subsidising him. He does not suggest that his subsidy should be reduced in order that my tax problem might be relieved.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Hamilton: I merely wished to put the picture in perspective. We are dealing with people who are paying excessive rents, and "excessive" implies a judgment by somebody. We wish to know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite regard the rents charged in Milngavie as excessive. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is on record as saying that they are not and that they should be increased by at least 25 per cent.
The hon. Member recommends a rent of not less than 7 per cent. of a person's income. That is roughly 1s. 6d.


in the £. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many industrial workers in Scotland are receiving less than £9 a week. The average rent in Scotland is 10s. 1d. Therefore, people are paying more now than the sum which the hon. Gentleman suggests is a reasonable rent. He must, therefore, support our Amendment. We suggest that the Secretary of State should take action against authorities charging rents on average of 10s. to workers who are receiving less than £10—and there are many of them in Scotland. If it is right for the Secretary of State to take action against authorities which are, in his view, charging excessively low rents, we say that he should take action against those authorities which are charging excessive rents. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in solving this problem, we will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brewis: If we look at the Toothill Report, we see that if we had an average figure of 18s. per week for rents in Scotland, that would do away with the need for any rate contribution at all, and that an average rent of 15s. a week would do away with a rate contribution in excess of the Exchequer contribution. I think that gives us some guidance as to what rents might be.
I have heard the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) say in Committee and here time and time again that we should trust the local authority, because the local authority would know what is right. When we consider rents, there are various things to be taken into account, such as the capacity of the tenant to pay and the amount of work which the landlord does to maintain the property—and sometimes landlords do internal decorations, fit washers to taps and so on, and in such cases, they would be entitled to a bigger rent. Incidentally, when we look at the provisions of Clause 25, we find that local authorities will have to take on a bigger repairs burden than that which they often carry at the moment. Therefore, it seems to me that the people to decide the rents are the local authorities.
I am very surprised at the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North putting forward this point, because

Section 73 (5) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, provides
The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.
The whole point of this business has arisen because Dunbartonshire and Glasgow have not reviewed their rents at all, and that is where the trouble started

Sir M. Galpern: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension with regard to Glasgow. I can assure him that Glasgow has on two occasions reviewed the rents, but there is no direction to the Glasgow Corporation and no indication that, as a result of the review, the Corporation must raise the rents to astronomical figures. Having reviewed the rents carefully, with the expert advice of the city factor and the assessor at that time, the corporation came to the conclusion that certain adjustments were required, but these were not acceptable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that Glasgow did not review rents.

Mr. Brewis: With very great respect, I wish to differ from the hon. Gentleman. I have here a copy of the Shaw Report on Glasgow rents, and, reading from page 14, recommendation 6—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I am wondering, Sir William, what exactly this has to do with this Amendment.

The Chairman: I have been listening carefully, and I do not think that the hon. Member has gone further from the Amendment than the other examples which have been put from both sides of the Committee. I appreciate that the Committee should keep as closely as possible to the terms of the Amendment. May I remind the Committee once more that this Amendment is to add the words—
Provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent.
That is what we are debating.

Mr. Brewis: I was saying that the local authority had to review the rents and to see whether they are too low or excessive. In the case of the Glasgow Corporation, it has on many occasions since 1953 refused, on being so moved,


to review rents, and that is why it was necessary to hold this inquiry.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has just made a very excellent case that rents are the concern of the local authority, and he went so far as to say that, in his opinion, the local authorities were the people who should decide. What is he complaining about when they do decide?

Sir M. Galpern: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "from time to time"? Who is to determine what time is to elapse? Since 1953, rents in Glasgow have been reviewed twice.

Mr. Brewis: The hon. Gentleman will find, if he reads that Report, that the local authorities are under a statutory duty under the 1950 Act. I will read the provision again:
The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.

Mr. Fraser: On a point of order. I submit that, on this Amendment, no one is entitled to discuss whether or not local authorities are entitled or obliged to review rents. As a matter of fact, I think we all appreciate that local authorities are obliged to review rents. I submit that we are only entiled to consider whether we should add to the responsibilities of local authorities, in addition to what is provided in Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act, that any such change which it might make shall not result in charging an excessive rent. The question before the Committee is whether or not we should put this limitation upon local authorities when they have to review rents, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not applied himself to the Amendment.

The Chairman: I suppose the effect of a change suggests that a review might be made before the change takes place, but I hope that the hon. Member will not go further than he needs on this Amendment.

Mr. Brewis: I was merely arguing that these words are necessary, because we should leave it to the local authority, taking all things into account, to decide whether rents are excessive or not. For example, Milngavie recently reviewed

rents and, in my submission, the local authority is the best body to decide whether the rents are reasonable or not.

Mr. Ross: As far as I can gather, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) thinks that when rents are too high, they are reasonable—that is what he said—and, in such a case, we should trust the local authority.
Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more objective about this? We are dealing with a Bill the whole purpose of which, as declared by the Government and agreed by back benchers opposite, as hon. Members who have read the Bill or the White Paper will realise, is to raise rents in Scotland. Does any hon. Member opposite deny that? The purpose of the Bill is to raise rents. The purpose of the power taken in Clause 29, to which we shall come later, is to raise rents, and if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to read the White Paper on housing, he will see that that is perfectly clear. Indeed, in the same way, the purpose of a new Clause which is on the Notice Paper, and to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name, is to raise rents in respect of another section of houses altogether. That being so, surely we are in the position, or will in future be in the position, that in Scotland we may have local authorities going far too far in respect of many people who are quite unable to pay anything like economic rents and who are faced with a situation in which the rents are excessive. These things have happened in Scotland before. These default powers have had to be used in respect of the responsibilities of local authorities, and Secretaries of State from time to time have had to intervene.
If it was right, as hon. Gentlemen opposite admit, for the Secretary of State to have an inquiry in regard to local authorities whose rents are low, he will surely appreciate that it may well be necessary in future, if not now, to have this power to intervene in respect of excessive rents. That is the whole point, and the only thing we are discussing at the moment—whether or not. by any change that is made after a review of rents, the rents charged are excessive. The tenants or ratepayers may complain to the Secretary of State, and the right hon. Gentleman, having examined their complaint, may set up an inquiry. That is what we are discussing.


We now want to put these words into the Bill as a future protection for the people of Scotland. I should be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman opposite would go to his constituency and deny this right. Would the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who sat so silent until he was questioned by one of my hon. Friends in regard to what rents are in Milngavie, go to Inverurie in his constituency and tell them that their rents should be raised? He knows quite well that he has not the courage to do that. He Likes to argue and to make vague generalisations about low rents, but when he has an opportunity to protect his constituents from being charged excessive rents, according to his or someone else's standard, he prefers to dodge the question and perform a Parliamentary "twist" without discussing the matter at issue. This is purely and simply a matter of affording some protection to Scottish council house tenants from what may be in the future, after the Bill is passed, very much higher and even excessive rents.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hendry: I was invited by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) to intervene during his speech. I did not do so because I was asked a specific question and I would far rather deal with this whole matter generally and hope to answer all the questions which have been put to me as I do so.
We are here concerned with reviews by local authorities of rents and with their making such changes in rents and rebates from time to time as may be most appropriate. That does not mean that the rents have to be increased or decreased. It means that the local authorities have to alter rents and rebates to meet the circumstances of their particular case.
In Scotland, as in other places, there is a vast range of incomes of tenants and what may be an excessive rent for one may be very much less than a proper rent for another. If a person can afford to pay an economic rent for his house, he should do so. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would suggest that the rents being charged in Milngavie are anything like the economic rents. There is no mysterious fund from which the cost of the upkeep of houses

can be drawn. Apart from subsidies, the cost of upkeep can come from only two sources—rents and rates—and both are contributed by the people who live in the area of the local authority concerned. I say without fear of contradiction that if a person can afford to pay the full rent, he ought to do so. When we discussed Clause 11, which provides for the building of houses without subsidies, hon. Members opposite agreed that the rents for those houses should be the economic rents.
The Amendment is concerned with a local authority which is charging excessive rents, but I know of no local authority in Scotland—and this is the question which I was asked—which is charging excessive rents. There is another side to the question of the review of rents and that is the review of rebates. Every local authority should be concerned both with proper rents and proper rebates.

Mr. Willis: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: It is not in the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Rent rebates and what is happening with rent rebates have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, which is specifically concerned with local authorities charging excessive rents, a matter with which the hon. Member has not been dealing.

The Chairman: Anything connected with whether a rent is excessive must be in order, and so far as the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. West (Mr. Hendry) covers that point, he is in order.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Member answer one plain question? Is he or is he not in favour of protecting people against excessive rents? That is the only question before the Committee.

Mr. Hendry: I thank you for dealing with that point of order as you did, Sir William. I will try my hardest to keep even more strictly in order. I do not think that the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was strictly in order.

Mr. Willis: Of course it is. It is the only question.

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. Is not the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) the only question which is in order? Is not the question before the Committee whether a local authority should not be able to charge an excessive rent? Is that- not the question which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has to answer, whatever he may think an excessive rent is?

The Chairman: I saw nothing out of order in the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Hendry: I will be guided by you. Sir William, and—

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to protect tenants against excessive rents. The hon. Member has now stated that he has no intention of addressing himself to this question? If that is so, is not his speech out of order?

The Chairman: If I am of opinion that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is out of order, it will be my duty to interrupt him.

Mr. Hendry: May I revert to my argument?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman does not have one.

Mr. Hendry: The Amendment will produce absolutely nothing, and hon. Members opposite will agree that legislation which means nothing is bad legislation and should not be passed. The 1950 Act provides machinery for dealing with an excessive rent. It also provides that a local authority must consider rebates and make such changes in rebates as may be necessary from time to time. That is the best safeguard for ensuring that poorer tenants are looked after.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Rossrose—

Mr. Hendry: I cannot give way. Hon. Members opposite have complained enough about the passage of time, and I must take a leaf out of their book and refuse to give way.
The 1950 Act provides that a local authority shall have a duty to consider not only rents, but rebates, and that is an adequate safeguard for tenants who are not able to pay what the local authority regards as a proper rent. If in reviewing its rents and rebates a local authority fails to make proper provision for a person unable to afford to pay the rent, that person has the simple remedy of complaining to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the 1950 Act, and saying that that local authority has failed in its duty. The Secretary of State will then have a duty, under the Bill, to take disciplinary action against that local authority, no matter whether it has failed to charge a sufficient rent or whether its rents are too great.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel rose—

Mr. Hendry: I cannot give way because of the passage of time.

Mr. Manuel: With his views about the under-charging of rents, I wonder why the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has not initiated an agitation for a review of rents in Aberdeenshire, which charges only £20 18s. a year, while Dunbartonshire, a county about which the hon. Member is constantly complaining, charges £6 a year more than the county which he represents.

Mr. Hendry: That is something of a red herring, but at the risk of getting out of order, I ask permission to answer to some extent. The hon. Member has not kept himself up to date. Aberdeenshire now charges a rent of 10 per cent. over and above the rateable value.

Mr. Manuel: That was my latest information.

Mr. Hendry: It may be the hon. Member's latest information, but it is completely out of date.
I can put what I have to say in a nutshell. The provisions of the 1950 Act and of the Bill are sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State can interfere if rents being charged are too low, as in the case of Dunbartonshire where they are 2s. 10d. a week, or too high for the tenants to pay. In either case a complaint can be made to the Secretary of State. In fact, a complaint does not have


to be made. He can on his own initiative take action against a local authority to bring rent and rebates into line with the circumstances as appropriate in the area at the time.

Mr. Galbraith: We have had an interesting, lively, and, I think, fairly wide-ranging debate on this Amendment. Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act requires a local authority from time to time to review rents and to make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require. The Amendment seeks to add the proviso that any change in rents resulting from such a review shall not result in the charging of excessive rents.
The Amendment is not concerned with the new provisions that we are proposing in Clause 29 to enable the Secretary of State to make a rent scheme where a local authority has been found to be in default. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is now turning her attention to the existing provisions of the 1950 Act and seeking to amend the provisions relating to a local authority's rent fixing obligations which have remained unchanged under both Labour and Conservative Administrations since 1949.
When the hon. Lady moved the Amendment, she expressed great concern about the possibility that a local authority might charge rents which were excessively high. In fact, she mentioned only one example, the small burgh of Milngavie, and it seemed to me that she was making rather heavy weather of this case. There has been no marked tendency on the part of local authorities in recent years to charge rents which are excessively high. As my right hon. Friend has said on a number of occasions, the trend has been in the opposite direction.

Mr. Manuel: In his opinion.

Mr. Galbraith: I should have thought that it was also the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the rents charged by many local authorities in Scotland were too low.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman says that his right hon. Friend has referred to this on many occasions. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman's statements are much too all-embracing, and that we continually have this lambasting and denigration of local authorities and municipal tenants. We believe in charging reasonable rents, but we think that this slur should not be cast generally on municipal tenants in Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith: I did not intend that at all. My right hon. Friend has on frequent occasions recently had to complain about a trend in the opposite direction from that about which the hon. Lady was complaining. In any case the protection for tenants against being asked to pay rents which are unreasonably high in relation to their resources is provided by the existence of a proper rebates scheme; and I know that there is a proper rebate scheme in Milngavie.
The hon. Lady and hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt have it in mind that if this provision were added to Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act it might be easier for the Secretary of State to find a local authority in default on the ground that it was charging rents which were excessively high. Here again, as on an Amendment put forward with a similar object in Committee, I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that their concern on this point is unnecessary.
Section 73 (5) which they are seeking to amend refers to changes in rents; but the rents which result from any such change must, in the terms of Section 71 (1) of the 1950 Act, be "reasonable,"—as indeed must all rents which local authorities charge for their houses. If, therefore, a local authority charged rents which were excessively high, this could not be said to be a reasonable level of rents; it would therefore be possible for the Secretary of State after the normal procedure of inquiry had been gone through, and if he thought fit, to declare that authority in default for charging rents which were unreasonably high. The words which the hon. Lady wishes to add to Section 73 (5) would not add anything to the protection already available to tenants against the charging of excessive rents. For this reason I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 194.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[7.46 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, Rt. Ht. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Edward


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas


Dempsey, James
McInnes, James
Stones, William


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Driberg, Tom
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swain, Thomas


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mapp, Charles
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert
Mason, Roy
Timmons, John


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Monslow, Walter
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gimburg, David
Neal, Harold
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas
Winter-bottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullard, Denys
Duncan, Sir James


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Eden, John


Allason, James
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Arbuthnot, John
Chataway, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (Nwc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Barlow, Sir John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Barter, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Collard, Richard
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Berkeley, Humphry
Corfield, F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Costain, A. P.
Foster, John


Biffen, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Fraser, Ian (Pymouth, Sutton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Freeth, Denzil


Bishop, F. P.
Curran, Charles
Gammans, Lady


Bossom, Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Dance, James
Glover, Sir Douglas


Box, Donald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Deedes, W. F.
Goodhart, Philip


Boyle, Sir Edward
de Ferranti, Basil
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, Raymond


Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Brown, Allan (Tottenham)
Doughty, Charles
Green, Alan


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
du Cann, Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.




Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveys, Walter H.
Ridsdale, Julian


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lubbock, Eric
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Russell, Ronald


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hastings, Stephen
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Seymour, Leslie


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin
Shaw, M.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Hendry, Forbes
Maitland, sir John
Smithers, Peter


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Marshall, Douglas
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speir, Rupert


Hobson, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stodart, J. A.


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hollingworth, John
Miscampbell, N.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Holt, Arthur
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Talbot, John E.


Hopkins, Alan
Morrison, John
Tapsell, Peter


Hornby, R. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Teeling, Sir William


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Nabarro, Gerald
Temple, John M.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Noble, Michael
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


James, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Jennings, J. C.
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Walder, David


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peyton, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pott, Percivall
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Leavey, J. A.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wise, A. R.


Leburn, Gilmour
Pym, Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woollam, John


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Ramsden, James
Worsley, Marcus


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Peter



Litchfield, Capt. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Longbottom, Charles
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Longden, Gilbert
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Mr. McLaren.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House, pursuant to Order [17th March].

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PRESCRIBE NEW RENT LIMIT OF CONTROLLED HOUSE.)

(1) (a) the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit by order provide that, as from such date as may be specified in the order, the rent. in the case of any dwelling-house subject to a controlled tenancy, recoverable from the tenant shall, notwithstanding anything in the terms of the tenancy or any enactment, be fixed in relation to the amount of the gross annual value thereof in such manner as the order may provide.

(b) An order made under this section may contain such incidental consequential and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient for giving effect to the purposes of the order.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection "controlled tenancy" has the same meaning as in the Rent Act, 1957, and "gross annual value" in relation to any dwelling-house to

which an order made under this section applies means the gross annual value of such dwelling-house as shown in the valuation roll for the year 1961–62 or for any subsequent year, or, where the dwelling-house forms part only of the land or heritage shown in the valuation roll, such proportion of the gross annual value shown in the valuation roll for that land or heritage as may be agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant or determined by the sheriff.

(2) (a) The power to make an order conferred on the Secretary of State by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(b) Any such order may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions.

(3) Where, pursuant to an order made by the Secretary of State under this section, the rent of any dwelling-house subject to a controlled tenancy recoverable from the tenant thereof is increased the amount of such increase shall be disregarded in determining any question as to the rights of the tenant to retain possession of such dwelling-houses as a statutory tenant and such rights shall not be prejudiced or affected thereby.—[Mr. Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.


The Bill which we have before us this afternoon is an excellent one. It sets out to give greater help to those authorities who most need it; it sets out to do something that is very necessary in Scotland, namely, to provide houses for letting; it makes new provision for strengthening the hands of local authorities in dealing with houses unfit for human habitation, and it gives additional powers to the Secretary of State to deal with certain abuses which have crept in during the course of the years.
Unfortunately it is not complete. One very important provision is left out. It does not attempt to l with one of the basic causes of bad housing in Scotland. Undoubtedly the housing position in Scotland now is extremely bad. No houses have been built for letting for many years. Generally speaking, those houses which are privately owned in Scotland and are available for letting are gradually becoming more and more dilapidated. A great proportion of the houses in Scotland have reached a state of dilapidation when they can no longer reasonably be regarded as fit for human habitation. It is to deal with that basic fault in the Scottish housing system that I move the new Clause.
A certain amount of misunderstanding seems to have arisen about it, and I want to tell the House, at the outset, just what the new Clause does not do.

Mr. Willis: Why not tell us what it does do? The hon. Member would be in order if he told us that.

Mr. Hendry: If the Clause is given a Second reading and thus forms part of the Bill, paragraph (3) will ensure that no house is removed from control. That is a very important matter, because pledges have been given at one time or another that during the lifetime of this Parliament the Government will not remove any houses from control.
I want to deal briefly with the difference between the restriction on rents and the control of houses under the main Acts, because the two things are very much tied up together. It must be pointed out that the position of Scotland is different from that of England, and I must develop my argument in order to show how the two situations differ.
At the beginning of the First World War—in 1915—provision was made that the rents of houses both in England and Scotland would remain at their existing level and that no matter what the length of the lease the tenant of the house at that time would have security of tenure. That was right and proper when the country was in an exceptional situation, and for a long time afterwards, when there was a serious shortage of houses. In 1920 provision was made for a permitted increase in the rents chargeable for controlled houses throughout the United Kingdom. The amount varied from place to place according to circumstances, but generally speaking—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. I submit that the hon. Member has now been speaking for between five and ten minutes without having referred to the subject matter of his Clause, which deals with a very simple matter, namely, the amount of rent to be paid.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member is developing his case for the new Clause. We should get on better if he were allowed to do so.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are operating under a Guillotine Motion which has been imposed by the majority who sit on the Government benches. In all the circumstances, I submit to you, Sir, that you have a duty to the minority, the Opposition, to prevent hon. Members on the Government benches from abusing this timetable Motion by making speeches which are clearly out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman is not out of order. If he gets out of order I shall call him to order.

Mr. Hendry: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Let me now return to what happened in 1920—

Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman intends to deal with what happened in 1920. I submit that he is most definitely out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to develop his case. It is always in order to develop a case. If I may say so with all due respect, the hon. Gentleman will get on more quickly if he is allowed to do so, and we shall save time.

Mr. Hendry: I am obliged to you, Sir.
I have almost finished what I was going to say about 1920. By and large, in both kingdoms landlords were entitled to raise rents by roughly 40 per cent. The reason for that was that the cost of repairs and so on had increased during the war and it was necessary for landlords to increase rents in order to cover the increased costs. In England that produced a system which was quite reasonable for a number of years, but in Scotland there was a peculiarity which was purely Scottish. It was not an English problem at all. It was that the landlord had to pay part of the rates in respect of the house.
During the years the tendency was for the rates to rise, with the result that the landlord had an increasing burden to bear out of his rents, which he could not pass on to the tenant. The general effect was that in Scotland the rents, instead of remaining stationary as they did in England, gradually diminished until the situation became so serious that in 1957 something had to be done about it. In 1957 a Bill was introduced which altered the situation. In England it was comparatively easy to do so, because just before then there had been a complete revaluation of all house property in England.

Mr. Willis: For goodness sake get on with the new Clause.

Mr. Hendry: Provision was made whereby the rents of controlled houses would be related to the rateable values, but in Scotland that was not possible because no such revaluation had taken place. In Scotland a small addition, which varied from time to time and from place to place, was permitted in these rents. But the effect of that was extraordinary, and it may surprise hon. Members to know that in many cases the rent, after the Rent Act was introduced in 1957, was actually less than it had been in 1920.

Mr. Manuel: The tenant was paying the same, though.

Mr. Hendry: In Glasgow a house which in 1920 was rented for £20, in 1962 has a rent of £15 11s. 8d. In the County of Dunbarton, another urban county in the South of Scotland, a rent of £20 in 1920 has become a rent of £10 7s. 6d. this year.

Mr. Manuel: The tenant is paying the same

Mr. Hendry: Obviously there has been a material change in the costs met by landlords in the interval. I cannot give an up-to-date figure of the cost of repairs, but a committee reported in 1953 that at that time the cost of repairs had risen by 216 per cent. since 1939, and certainly the cost of repairs has risen since then. The effect of that is that unless a landlord is prepared to produce money out of his own pocket, which many of them have done, he cannot keep his house in proper repair out of the rent. A great many houses in Scotland, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, have become seriously dilapidated and there are still a great many houses in Scotland which are basically perfectly good houses and capable of improvement.

Mr. Dempsey: They have been dilapidated for the past thirty years.

Mr. Hendry: I do not suggest that all the privately-owned houses in Scotland are good and that all privately-owned houses would have been kept in a proper condition if a proper rent structure had been set up in 1957, but hon. Members will understand the magnitude of this problem in Scotland when I mention that at the time of the Rent Act in 1957 there were estimated to be no fewer than 600,000 houses in control in Scotland, and the estimated figure today is now fewer than 450,000 houses, which is a vast slice of the housing accommodation in Scotland and housing now no fewer than one-third of the population. Therefore, this is a matter of extreme importance.
As year follows year these houses are running the risk of further dilapidation, and it is for that reason that I have introduced this Clause. In doing so I have followed a very good precedent.


In the debate on the Rent Act in 1957 this point was discussed in the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, speaking in the Third Reading debate in March, 1957, said:
These rent provisions are, as I have said, of an interim nature and the Government do not look on them as representing a new rent structure for houses remaining in control. It will be necessary, once the new valuations become available in 1961, to make a fresh and comprehensive review of the position as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March. 1957 Vol. 567. c. 1421.]
Since 1957 a good many things have happened. There has been a complete revaluation of all heritable property, including house property, in Scotland. The change to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in his speech in 1957 has taken place. This revaluation has taken place and the Government are now in a position to consider the effects of these revaluations and produce a completely new rent structure for controlled houses in Soot-land in the same way as took place in England in 1957.

Mr. J. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the rents of privately-owned houses were increased to the gross rateable value, all the necessary repairs and alterations, including the installation of inside lavatories, running water, hot water systems and so on, would be provided?

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member knows the powers and duties of local authorities as well as any other hon. Member, and he can make up his own mind about that himself. The fact is that thousands of basically sound houses in Scotland have become dilapidated because the controlled rents are insufficient to meet the cost of repair, and many more will be lost unless these steps are taken. Hon. Members know that very well.

Mr. Willis: That is sheer nonsense.

Mr. Hendry: I agree that this matter may cause the Government a little embarrassment. I shall try to satisfy my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he need have no embarrassment at all. Just before the last election the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in England made a statement at a Press conference, when he said that the Government would not remove any

houses from rent control. As I took care to point out at the beginning of my speech, this Clause has not that effect and no house will be taken out of control as a result of it.
The second point which might embarrass my right hon. Friend is that the then Minister of Housing and local Government subsequently said, outside this House, that no alteration would be made in rent levels during the lifetime of this Parliament. By that I take him to mean that he would make no alteration in the level of rents at which houses were controlled or decontrolled, which in Scotland at the moment stands at £40. I am not seeking to make any alteration in that at all.
I would remind hon. Members of the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Rent Act, 1957, which gives power to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by order to remove houses from control. I suggest to my hon. Friend that what the Government spokesman meant at that time, if indeed he meant anything at all, was that no steps would be taken under Section 11 (3) to bring houses out of control by altering the rent level by which they remained in control.
If the Government give effect to this, they will, in my opinion, be quite consistent with their pledge. I have taken even greater care to make sure that the Government need have no embarrassment about this. I have in my new Clause tried in no way to fix what level of rent would be appropriate for these houses. What I seek to do is to give powers to the Secretary of State at such time as he thinks fit to make a new rent structure. It may be that he is not yet ready to do that because I understand that in some parts of Scotland revaluation has not been completed. If he finds any difficulty on that score, he need not be worried, because the new Clause gives him discretion to impose this rent structure as and when he thinks fit, which may not be in the course of the present Parliament, although I hope that it will be.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does that mean that the Clause bears no relation to the amount of the gross annual value? Is it merely words, or does it mean that it is an argument to try to bring parity


between the practice in regard to council houses and the practice in houses of this kind? What is the purpose of it?

Mr. Hendry: It means that the Secretary of State, in considering this matter, has merely to use the annual value as a sort of yardstick. It might be higher than the level in use or it might be lower. To illustrate that, in England the Minister used the gross annual value as the yardstick of rents but he did not use it simplicitá, because it was fixed immediately after the war and things had changed. In England, at the moment, I understand that the level of rents of controlled houses is not the gross annual value, but twice the gross annual value, which shows that that is merely a measure which might be used for the purpose of settling things at some time in the future.

Mr. J. Robertson: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is twice the gross annual value in England? What is the figure—is it £20?

Mr. Hendry: If I were to answer that question, I should be completely out of order, in discussing rents in England. I am discussing the situation in Scotland. We are trying to give the Secretary of State power to remedy this situation in which we find ourselves in Scotland.
I have spoken at considerable length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No doubt, I have spoken very much longer than hon. Members opposite would have liked, but I feel that I must remind the House of the extraordinary situation of these houses in Scotland. An example of 1962 rents for a three apartment controlled house with all modern conveniences—kitchenette, bathroom, hot and cold water and all the rest—in the City of Glasgow is 9s. a week. The average figure for a similar house in Dumbarton is only 6s. a week. That is rather less than the 1920 rents for the same houses, which is a completely fantastic situation.

Mr. McInnes: May I ask the hon. Member where he got his figures? Did the Factors and Property Owners Association supply them?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hendry: I got the figures from the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers which, of course, is an

organisation which has made a study of these matters. If any hon. Gentlemen opposite are in doubt about the veracity of the figures, I will read, in conclusion, parts of a letter which I received last year from a lady in my constituency. This lady, who is elderly and has very slender means, told me that she bought a house, a double villa, which consists of two semi-detached houses each containing three apartments, with bathroom and kitchenette. One of these houses was let under controlled tenancy and at the time she bought it the controlled rent was £13 per annum. In 1957, under the new Act, she was allowed to increase the rent by 25 per cent., making the present rent £16 5s.

Mr. Ross: She could have increased it considerably more—by 50 per cent.—if she had been able to show that she had been doing the repairs.

Mr. Hendry: I am reading from the lady's letter—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite want me to carry on longer I am willing to do so.
Having got her rent to £16 5s. she then had to deduct from it no less than £5 7s. 3d. in respect of owner's rates, leaving her with a net rent for that house of £10 17s. 9d. That was not slum property. It was a stone-built house kept in first-class repair which that lady has had to pay for out of her own pocket.

Mr. Manuel: On the point of owner's rates, which in this case amount to about £6, will he not agree that that is a much better bargain now than it was previously when individual house owners had to pay for the services of the fire brigade, which is now paid for by the general body of ratepayers? They now get these services free and the cost is carried by the rest of the ratepayers.

Mr. Hendry: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he can get a three-apartment, stone built house, with a kitchenette and bathroom, for £10 17s. 9d. a year, or 4s. 2d. a week, it is a mighty good bargain. There is the situation. The present gross annual value of that house on revaluation is £29. Obviously that it what the county assessor considers to be the proper rent of that house and all that this lady is entitled to charge is £10 17s. 9d., or


4s. 2d. a week. She concludes her letter with these pathetic words:
I am sure you, with your sense of justice, will be able to help those poor small house owners who need help so badly. I am (a greedy grasping landlord). Yours respectfully, Miss Anton.
That is what I am asking the House to give the Secretary of State power to remedy. It is with the greatest confidence that I commend the new Clause to the House.

Mr. T. Fraser: This is a disgraceful Clause, and we have just listened to a disgraceful speech. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has taken half-an-hour of the time allotted to consider this Bill to discuss a matter which does not come even within the Long Title of the Bill. He has made abundantly clear that he sees the purpose of this Bill is to enable there to be an indefinite continuation of the right of private enterprise landlords to draw rents for houses which they own and which have been occupied for the past hundred years. By this Clause the hon. Gentleman is asking that rents for these hundred-year-old houses which are less than the gross annual value, as determined by the assessor, shall be raised to that figure or that at least the new rent shall have a relationship to the valuation.
Is this done in the interests of equity? Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind that the figure determined by the assessor should be the figure of rent to be paid by all who occupy private enterprise rented houses in Scotland? Not at all. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are about 450,000 controlled houses in Scotland. There are about 150,000 houses that were taken out of control by the provisions of the 1957 Act, and houses are coming out of control with every week that passes. In every case the rent charged after control ceases greatly exceeds the amount laid down by the county or city assessor.
In the interests of equity, did the hon. Gentleman suggest that rent should be brought back to the amount determined by the assessor? In reaching this gross annual value the hon. Gentleman was determining what he regarded as a fair rent. But it is suggested in the interests of equity that the assessor should determine

a figure which would be made applicable in the case of those 150,000 houses taken out of control since 1957? Not at all? The hon. Gentleman did not move this Clause in the interests of equity, but in the interests of the landlords. And I am not sure that he should not have declared his own interest.
The vast majority of those 450,000 controlled houses in Scotland were built before 1880. The vast majority of them are one- and two-apartment houses with no amenities at all. With no hot and cold water supply, no bathroom and no kitchen. The vast majority of the tenants have to share a toilet with several other tenants. Thirty years ago a Royal Commission said that the owners of those houses regarded them as a dripping roast that would go on dripping for ever. In the intervening thirty years most of the landlords have not spent any money at all on keeping those houses in a decent state of repair.
The hon. Gentleman regrets very much that the net income from those houses is less today than forty-two years ago when the 1920 Act was put on the Statute Book. Those houses have earned more and more money during those years and in most cases no money has been spent upon them to keep them in an adequate state of repair. Every decent-thinking Scot wishes to see most of those 450,000 houses, which the hon. Gentleman himself said were dilapidated, pulled down and replaced by decent houses for our people. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this Bill is not calculated to increase the supply of houses by a single house a year. The net effect of its provisions will be to reduce the number of new houses built in Scotland to replace those which are 80, 90, 100 and 110 years old, the sort of houses occupied by many of our fellow citizens.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that about one-fifth or more of the population—about one-third—live in houses privately owned and rented. He recognises that nearly one-third are living in houses still rented. The number is a little less than one-third but more than one-quarter. The hon. Gentleman knows that more than one-fifth of our fellow citizens are living in the sort of houses which I have described, with no amenities at all. In the main it is in


respect of that type of house that the acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's Clause would result in there being a little more "lolly" few the landlord. I do not know why even the hon. Gentleman was not ashamed of himself as he moved this new Clause. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will reject it. If he does not, he will show that the Government have shed the last remnants of decency that reside on the benches opposite.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the question has been raised with you before, but we are working under a timetable Motion and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) took, I understand, about twenty-four minutes of our precious time in moving this Motion. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter at once, but if not I wish to move, That the Question be now put. There are other matters of immense importance which we shall not be able to discuss and which could not be discussed during the Committee stage because of the imposition of a Guillotine, which was supported by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Lady that that is not a point of order. I have called the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). I hope that the hon. Member will be brief.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I have—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should declare his interest.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley —not had an opportunity to speak because I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill for reasons that were beyond my control. I have a speech which I can make if I am provoked by hon. Members opposite. In view of the fact that I know the House wishes to pass on to other matters of importance I will take the minimum amount of time. But I must ask for the courtesy of an opportunity to say that I think that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) did not put the whole picture before the House.

When we referred to controlled houses we were speaking of the homes of one-third of the people of Scotland. Although many of these houses are old, and I agree with the hon. Member when he says that many should be swept away and that decent Scotsmen would like to see them pulled down, in fairness, I must say that quite a number are decent flats in the cities and have all the amenities. They are not bad houses and they are eagerly sought after by tenants.

Mr. Ross: How many?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not going into a lot of detail. Obviously if I am driven into giving a lot of detail I cannot make my speech short. We must face realities. Whether we want to or not, we cannot sweep all those houses away at once and replace them by new ones. What, therefore, should we do? They are all under controlled rents. I make no apology for speaking on behalf of Scottish landlords because I think they have had the muddy end of the stick over this matter. Scottish owners of housing property have long suffered under the grievance that because of the impact of owners' rates with which we have now done away—

Mr. Manuel: They get protection for the rates.

8.30 p.m.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Every increase from 1940 onwards was eaten into by the ever-increasing owners' rates so that there was an insufficient rental income to provide for repairs of these houses.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) wants is to see that in those cases where there are still houses subject to the control under the Rent Act the rental income shall be sufficient to allow for repairs to the property and to see that they are properly maintained. He does not suggest what the rental should be, but simply that it should be fixed in relation to the gross annual value. That seems a sensible proposal. My right hon. Friend would not be precluded from bringing that into operation by any pledge which was given at the time of the last election because they were not relevant to the circumstances.
Before closing my speech, I wish to deal with the only one which, I admit,


gave me a great deal of thought. The pledge was made in these terms by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government—the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury. At a Press conference on 30th September, 1959, he said that the Government did not in the next Parliament intend to alter the rent levels laid down in the Rent Act. There are no rent levels laid down in the Rent Act other than the rent levels laid down in Section 11 (3) of the 1957 Act which says that the controlled rents shall cease to be controlled if the value rises above £40 in Scotland or the Metropolitan police district of London or £30 in England and Wales.

Mr. McInnes: What about repairs? Did they not get money then?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is not covered by this pledge.

Mr. McInnes: But we know they got it.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is not usually so far off the mark. I was not talking about the increases allowed under the Act. Those increases were admittedly 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. subject to certain qualifications, but they had been siphoned away by the incidence of owners' rates in excess rents. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not precluded by any pledge that has been given not to introduce this sort of thing. I think this would be a wise measure in the interests of the tenants of owners of controlled houses in Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I was glad that we had him back with us again. I think that while he has been away he must have got up a lot of steam because I thought he was a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) who moved the Second Reading of this new Clause.
The effect of the new Clause would be to empower the Secretary of State by order to fix the rents of controlled houses, despite the terms of the tenancies or of the Rent Acts, by reference to the gross annual value. This proposed new Clause seems to be outside the Long Title of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I know that my hon. Friend has put down

an Amendment seeking to extend the Title sufficiently to cover this Clause, but I must say to him that the contents of the Clause seem rather to belong to the Rent Acts than to the Housing Acts. It is not, therefore, entirely appropriate to the present Bill. For this reason alone I should be reluctant to accept it in the present Bill.
In addition, however, the Government have already made clear that they do not intend in the present Parliament to alter the rent levels laid down in the Rent Act. Although my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) was able to satisfy himself that this new Clause would not do that, I am afraid that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has been able to satisfy himself. In our view this new Clause would cut right across that undertaking. That is another reason for not accepting it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would appreciate that it would be wrong for us not to keep our word. [Laughter.] I do not understand why hon. Members opposite laugh—

Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand, may I remind him that in the General Election his party promised not to introduce a Bill to amend the Rent Act. What was the 1957 Bill but a Bill to amend the Rent Act?

Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Member has got it wrong. What we said was that we would not introduce a Bill, but we would review the position. Here we are seeking to keep our word, and we regard ourselves as bound by what the Chief Secretary said. When the 1957 Act was passing through Parliament my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he regarded the Scottish Clauses as being of an interim nature pending the 1961 revaluation. He indicated that it would be necessary
once the new values become available in 1961 to make a fresh and comprehensive review of the position as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1957: Vol. 567. c. 1421.]

Mr. McInnes: A confidence trick.

Mr. Galbraith: It was no confidence trick. The Secretary of State's remarks in that year did not imply any undertaking that legislation to review the Rent


Act would be introduced immediately the new values were available. Quite apart from the Government's pledge not to alter rent levels in the present Parliament, the collection of the necessary information about the gross values and the rents of controlled houses would be a major operation, and for this reason, if for no other, the early introduction of fresh rent control legislation would clearly be impracticable.
I am not entirely unsympathetic towards my hon. Friend's case, and my right hon. Friend has it very much in mind, but at the moment I regret that I cannot accept his proposal. I hope that, in the light of the three reasons which I have given, he will feel disposed to withdraw the new Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 3.—(AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES—OTHER APPROVED HOUSES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, to leave out from "pounds" to "by" in line 20.
This Amendment seeks to remove the power which the Secretary of State desires in order to prescribe by order some other figure than the key figure of £60 in the resources test calculation. Prior to the Bill being introduced housing subsidies were generally based on the estimated annual cost of the house and the reduction of the estimated rent, and the balance thereof was met to the extent of three-quarters by the Treasury and one-quarter by the local rate contribution. Under the provisions of Clause 3, subsidies will in future be based on a formula relating to the local authority's potential resources.
In order to arrive at a realistic measure of a local authority's potential resources on its housing revenue account for the purpose of the calculation of subsidy under Clause 3, it is proposed to substitute for the actual income from rents and the rate fund contribution the total gross value of the local authority's houses plus half the difference between that total and the figure arrived at by multiplying £60 by the total number of houses. This is a very complicated formula. The Secretary of State now

seeks powers to alter the key figure of £60 in the future. The Amendment seeks to omit these words because we believe that their retention would inevitably produce uncertainty in local government calculations. I do not think that the Under-Secretary will deny that.
Why does the Secretary of State desire this power to amend this key figure upon which the whole formula was based? The Under-Secretary said in Committe that it was to meet the changing circumstances—changes in the standard of living, for example. When asked if changes in revaluation would be regarded as changing circumstances, he replied that they might be or they might not be. When asked if the intention was to vary the key figure of £60 to keep the annual subsidy bill down because too many local authorities were receiving the higher subsidy rates, the Under-Secretary said that that was an entirely hypothetical question.
I do not regard it as a hypothetical question. It is a very pertinent and relevant question. I genuinely believe that what is behind this desire to amend the key figure at some future date is the fact that too many local authorities may receive the higher subsidy and the Government's calculation of this formula has gone haywire. When were subsidies ever related to changes in the standard of living? Indeed, when were subsidies ever related to valuation, except in this Bill?
I think I have the real answer to this problem from the Under-Secretary himself. When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Under-Secretary concluded his statement by saying this:
I am sorry that I cannot give to the Committee any precise indication of the circumstances in which the figure of £60 will be varied. The whole point of the provision is to cater for changes that may occur in the future; we cannot say, in advance, what they will be, should they arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee: 13th March. 1962; c 695–6.]
I am amazed that the Under-Secretary, with all the facilities of the Scottish Office and with the help of those who worked out this rather complicated formula, is unable to give us any indication or information as to what circumstances are likely to arise which would justify an alteration of the key figure of £60.
8.45 p.m.
To me, all that implies that the Government themselves have no confidence in their own Bill and, in particular, no confidence in this formula when they now seek to amend this figure at any subsequent time. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not happy about the figure of £60. It was, as he said, an empirical figure—a figure arrived at by trial and error; there has been more error than trial about it. The Secretary of State, lacking faith in his own figure, desires to change it without his having adduced a single argument in Committee in favour of it. Those being the circumstances, we feel justified in refusing to give him the power to amend the figure at some future date.

Mr. Galbraith: The Amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State by order to prescribe another figure in place of the key figure of £60 in the resources test calculation. The arguments against the Amendment are very much the same as those which I used in Committee, but perhaps I should try to explain the matter again. In order to do that, it is necessary to explain the background.
As is stated in paragraph 25 of the White Paper, the actual level and pattern of a local authority's income does not give a true measure of its resources, and we think that the new valuations should provide, for the first time, a realistic basis for determining the value of a local authority's main assets—the houses it owns. But market values in Scotland have been depressed by the long-standing tradition of low rents, and assessors' valuations have, quite rightly, reflected that state of affairs. We therefore propose to allow for this distortion of the market pattern by adding to the valuation an amount related to the difference between the actual average valuation and the figure of £60 per house. That will secure that those local authority areas where valuations are higher will be subject to a lesser increase, while those areas where valuations have been most depressed by low rents will be increased by a correspondingly larger amount.
As I said in Committee, the figure of £60 is, admittedly, an empirical one—and the hon. Member for Glasgow,

Central (Mr. McInnes) has referred to that. Nevertheless, the addition of a supplement related to that key figure seems to produce a reasonable result as between individual local authorities. By that, I mean that the adoption of this criterion draws a reasonable line between the local authorities with relatively inadequate, and those with relatively adequate resources, so that we can give a substantial increase in subsidy to those authorities which need it most, while maintaining Exchequer assistance to housing at about its present level.
If the criterion were set lower, so that more local authorities qualified for the higher subsidy rate, the increase in subsidy that we could afford would be correspondingly less, and we should not be able to achieve our object of giving considerably greater help where it was most needed. That is what I mean by this process of trial and error. It is as a result of trial and error that we got this figure which enabled us to give a very much higher subsidy to those local authorities that needed it and, at the same time, to keep more or less within the global Exchequer figure.
That criterion does not seem to be unreasonable when one considers that the average gross valuation of houses owned by the local authorities in Scotland is about £46. Allowing for the supplement—that is, half way to £60—we estimate that the average notional income per house will be about £53. We believe that it is perfectly fair to expect local authorities generally to obtain an income of this order from rents and the rate fund contribution. That is the situation today and £60 is the right figure.
Now I come to the Amendment. It is necessary to provide for alterations of this figure of £60 because while it produces a reasonable result at present we may have to change it if, at any time, the result it produces were no longer in line with the conditions then prevailing. This might arise, for example, after the next revaluation in 1966. It could easily arise before or after that date as a result of changes in circumstances which we cannot at present foresee.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central asked what those circumstances were. All I can say is that they are rather like an elephant—very difficult


to define but unmistakable when one sees it. The Government cannot accept the Amendment, although I can assure hon. Members that there is at present no intention of varying the key figure of £60. Nevertheless, in a calculation of potential resources, it is inevitable that the Secretary of State should have power to adjust the calculations when circumstances change.
The whole object of the key figure is to ensure that those local authorities that need the subsidy most get a big subsidy, and yet, at the same time, the payments are approximately maintained within the global figure. Because of this the Secretary of State must have powers to vary the figure of £60. This sort of flexibility we believe to be essential and, for that reason, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. McInnes: The Under-Secretary has not, up to now, indicated what the changing circumstances may be, and I appreciate his difficulty. But if it is something that may happen in years ahead, would it not be better dealt with by leaving the figure of £60 in the Bill and, if such circumstances arise in the future, new legislation could be introduced to amend the figure?

Mr. Manuel: What is wrong with that suggestion?

Mr. Galbraith: That would be quite out of place. It is a small adjustment

which keeps the Bill flexible. It would be unnecessary to have a Bill for this purpose.

Miss Herbison: It is evident that the Under-Secretary had great difficulty tonight, as he did in Committee, in giving any idea of what the circumstances might be in which the Secretary of State would wish to change the figure of £60. The Under-Secretary says that it gives us a reasonable result now, but what is that result? It is that a certain number of local authorities will have their subsidies cut by 50 per cent., to £12, and many will have them increased to £32.
It seems Chat the Under-Secretary wants the Clause to remain as it is so that his right hon. Friend can juggle with the figure. It is obvious that if the Secretary of State considers that too many local authorities will come up to the £32 level of subsidy the figure will then be immediately altered. We have no doubt (hat that is why he wants to keep this power. He wants to juggle with the figure and we intend to go into the Division Lobby against the Government.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided; Ayes 196, Noes 142.

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Freeth, Denzil


Aitken, W. T.
Cleaver, Leonard
Gammans, Lady


Allason, James
Collard, Richard
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Arbuthnot, John
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Corfield, F. V.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Atkins, Humphrey
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Barlow, Sir John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip


Barter, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Goodhew, Victor


Batsford, Brian
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Curran, Charles
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Berkeley, Humphry
Dalkeith, Earl of
Green, Alan


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Dance, James
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bitten, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bossom, Clive
de Ferranti, Basil
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Box, Donald
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
du Cann, Edward
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Sir James
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Brooman-White, R.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hay, John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Emery, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Buck, Antony
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Billiard, Denys
Errington, Sir Eric
Hendry, Forbes


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Farr, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel
Hobson, Sir John


Chataway, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holland, Philip


Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, John
Hollingworth, John


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Holt, Arthur




Hopkins, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Hornby, R. P.
Mills, Stratton
Smithers, Peter


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Miscampbell, N.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morrison, John
Speir, Rupert.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stodart, J. A


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Gerald
Studholme, Sir Henry


Iremonger, T. L,
Neave, Airey
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Michael
Talbot, John E.


James, David
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Tapsell, Peter


Jennings, J. C.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Teeling, Sir William


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Temple, John M.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Peel, John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Langford-Holt, sir John
Percival, John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Leavey, J. A.
Peyton, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Leburn, Gilmour
Pott, Percivall
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pym, Francis
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Litchfield, Capt. John




Longden, Gilbert
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walder, David


Loveys, Walter H.
Ramsden, James
Wall, Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacPherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Wise, A. R.


Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maginnis, John E.
Russell, Ronald
Woollam, John


Maitland, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Marshall, Douglas
Seymour, Leslie



Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Shaw, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shepherd, William
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Parker, John


Awbery, Stan
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Beaney, Alan
Henderson, RtHn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Blackburn, F.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Darling, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Edward


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Driberg, Tom
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Steele, Thomas


Edelman, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Evans, Albert
Manuel, Archie
Swain, Thomas


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Timmons, John


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Courlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Owen, Will
Willey, Frederick







Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Willis, E. Q. (Edinburgh, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Winterbottom, R. E.



Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann

Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, at the beginning to insert:
if the Secretary of State thinks fit after consultation with the local authority".

The Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment that in page 4, line 24, to leave out "shall" and insert "may".

Mr. Rankin: If the Amendments were passed, paragraph (b) of subsection (3) would read:
if the Secretary of State thinks fit after consultation with the local authority there may be excluded from the debits any expenditure by way of rebates from rents".
In Committee, we had a long discussion on subsection (3). We on this side moved an Amendment to leave out the whole subsection, but, unfortunately, numbers triumphed over intelligence and we suffered defeat after an inconclusive debate. I think I am right in saying that the debate centred round the issue whether, when a local authority pays out money, that money should be regarded as expenditure or not; in other words, we said that rebates paid out by a local authority were expenditure by the local authority. By a strange freak of financial wizardry, the Under-Secretary tried to prove that when these rebates were paid out by the local authority, they were not debits but credits. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman remains at the Scottish Office when that high form of intelligence as so badly needed, and will be even more badly needed during the Budget debate next week.
To be fair to him, however, he did say that our claim had been allowed for already on the resources side of the income test of a rebate, but when he was asked why it was that irrecoverable rents could be included when calculating the amount of the subsidy, while rent rebates could not be so included, he admitted a certain lack of clarity. Whether that was an example of myosis or not, I will not say. It is for him to judge, but he admitted that he was not clear on the issue, and he pleaded that we should give him time to think it over. He got time, whether sufficient or

not, and he replied later in the debate to the effect that no discretion was exercisable by the local authorities in the matter of rents which were irrecoverable, but that the authority had discretion in the case of rebates.
I wonder exactly what discretion a local authority has in the matter of rebates. Every individual on the Opposition side knows that rebates in case of very many local authorities are almost a matter of necessity, for the simple reason that rents, as charged in Scotland today, could not fully be met by a very large number of those people who are bound to get new houses because of need and are entitled to live in them, and who could not pay the full rent. That situation will be intensified in Scotland by the fact that the locomotive works in Springburn have closed down. The shale oil industry of the Lothians has closed or will be closed down, and the Mossend tube works of Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds are to be closed down. Therefore, it would seem that local authorities have no discretion in the matter of rebates, just as they have no discretion, on the admission of the Under-Secretary himself, in the matter of irrecoverable rents. I agree that there might be an argument if he had said that the local authority had discretion in varying rebates, but he said that rebates were not like irrecoverable rents, for m the one there was a discretion, while in the other there was not.
To show that we are not vindictive, we are offering the hon. Gentleman a way out. We are suggesting that before he puts this subsection into operation he should consult the local authorities. That is not asking him to do a great deal. It will not infringe the supreme authority of the Secretary of State, nor affect his dignity in the least, but it may give him a great deal of wisdom which will help him to a wiser decision. Local authorities know all the circumstances of the people in their areas and have all the facts which can help the right hon. Gentleman to reach a wise decision before he applies paragraph (b) with all its rigours. He must also remember that


conditions are very harsh in many parts of Scotland.
We go a little further and say that instead of being imperative and saying that they shall be excluded, as the Secretary of State says, he should accept the conditional and say that they may be excluded. Whenever we talk about the words "shall" and "may", our minds immediately go searching back into those days when right hon. Gentlemen opposite used to argue that "may" included "shall". My hon. Friends will all remember the arguments which we used to have. The Under-Secretary will remember that the Government used to say that the words were interchangeable. He cannot now say that "shall" does not include "may", because for so long he said that "may" included "shall". He cannot deny that. Now we are asking that he should say, as Euclid used to say, that the contrary is also true and that "shall" must include "may".

Mr. Manuel: He may agree.

Mr. Rankin: I am glad to hear that optimism and I leave it to the Under-Secretary to justify it.

Mr. Galbraith: Subsection (3, b) at present provides that in the resources test there shall be excluded from debits any expenditure by way of rebates from rents.

Mr. Willis: Shocking.

Mr. Galbraith: It is not shocking but very sensible. The effect of the Amendment would be to alter that to provide that it the Secretary of State thinks fit, after consultation with the local authority, he may exclude from the debits any expenditure by way of rebates from rents. This Amendment does not go as far as a rather wider Amendment which was debated in Committee, since it does not propose to get rid altogether of the requirement that the amount of rebate should be excluded from the resources test, but seeks instead to give the Secretary of State power to exclude rebates after consultation with the local authority. However, it is really very much the same point as was debated before, and I am sorry that it is being raised again because it indicates, I think, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are still under a misapprehension. I shall do the best I can to remove it from their minds.
In the resources tests we are disregarding the local authority's actual income from rents and the rate fund, and are substituting a notional income from these sources. Clearly when we talk about the income from rents we mean the actual money which the local authority has received from tenants; that is, the net rent which the tenants pay after allowing for any rebates granted to them. I need not explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their experience of local government, that the tenant does not first pay the full gross rent and then receive a refund from the local authority. He pays only the net amount of the rebated rent. There is only one transaction.
9.15 p.m.
But for accounting purposes—and this is where the difficulty arises—the net rent does not appear as a separate item of income in the housing revenue account. The income side shows the gross rent, and the expenditure side shows the rebates which are set against the gross rent. This does not alter the fact that the local authority's real income from the houses is the net rent. It is interesting to note that the housing revenue accounts of English local authorities show the net rent on the income side, with no corresponding item for rebates on the expenditure side.
The need for Clause 3 (3, b) in a Scottish Bill is the result, therefore, in effect, of an accident of Scottish accounting. The point involved in this Amendment was never raised in the debates on the English Bill, and yet rebates take place in England just as much as they do in Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman founding legislation on two fictional things—an accident, and a notional figure?

Mr. Galbraith: I am not doing that at all. I was trying to point out that in England, where they have rebates, this point was never raised, because they have a different accounting system. But the situation as regards the passing of money is the same.
I realise that this is a complicated matter, but the actual income from rents received by a local authority does not matter, because it is left out of the calculations altogether and is replaced by an assumed income. Therefore, a


local authority can give away as much money in rebates as it likes without losing subsidy because what determines its subsidy position is not its actual income, which is ignored, but the actual expenditure which it has to meet in repayment of loan charges and so on, set against the notional income based on the gross value of the houses.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman said that a local authority could give away as much money as it liked by way of rebate. This is not so, and the hon. Gentleman must correct his statement. The Secretary of State for Scotland must agree to any rebate scheme which a local authority proposes to adopt, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman controls the extent of the rebate. A local authority cannot give away as much money as it likes.

Mr. Galbraith: I said that a local authority could give away as much money as it liked without losing subsidy. I am talking about the subsidy point. Rebates are not expenditure. For accounting reasons they seem to be expenditure, but they are not. They are therefore irrelevant to the resources test calculations and should always be excluded from them. Because of that I cannot accept the Amendment even

though the hon. Gentleman moved it in such an amusing way.

Miss Herbison: The Under-Secretary has done his best to make a case for the rejection of the Amendment, but in spite of What he has said about the calculation, and so on, there are certain local authorities which, if they are to charge the rents which the Secretary of State wishes them to charge, will have to give many rent rebates. The more they give in rebates the less their real income will be. I believe that an examination was made in Coatbridge only a few weeks ago, and it astounded everybody to discover the number of people earning less than £10 a week. If that council were to charge the rents which the Secretary of State wishes it to charge its real income would be very much smaller than would be represented by the rents charged, because there would have to be so many rebates.
The Under-Secretary seems determined that no matter how reasonable an Amendment may be, if it is moved from this side of the House it will not be accepted. We intend to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 199.

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[9.21 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Finch, Harold
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Awbery, Stan
Forman, J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. Horace


Beaney, Alan
Caitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, Sir George
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Blyton, William
Gooch, E. G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McInnes, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gourlay, Harry
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Anthony
McLeavy, Frank


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, Charles
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Callaghan, James
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Chapman, Donald
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Richard


Cronin, John
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mayhew, Christopher


Darling, George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.


Deer, George
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Monslow, Walter


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.


Driberg, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will


Ede, Rt. Hon C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.


Edelman, Maurice
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paget, R. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Parker, John


Evans, Albert
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence




Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Timmons, John


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin


Popplewell, Ernest
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Prentice, R. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sorensen, R, W.
Whitlock, William


Probert, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Randall, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Rankin, John
Steele, Thomas
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Redhead, E. C.
Stones, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Reid, William
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Rhodes, H.
Swain, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, D.
Winterbottom, R, E.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)



Ross, William
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Edward
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Aitken, W. T.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Allason, James
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, N.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Morrison, John


Barlow, Sir John
Green, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barter, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Gerald


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Berkeley, Humphry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Noble, Michael


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bitten, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Clive
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hastings, Stephen
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Percival, Ian


Brewis, John
Hendry, Forbes
Peyton, John


Brooman-White, R.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pott, Percivall


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Hobson, Sir John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bullard, Denys
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hollingworth, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holt, Arthur
Ramsden, James


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rtfl Hon. Dame P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, Rt. Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Collard, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Seymour, Leslie


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. C.
Shaw, M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Crowder, F. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Curran, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smithers, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Dance, James
Kershaw, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, Rupert


Deedes, W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, J. A.


de Ferranti, Basil




Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Talbot, John E.


du Cann, Edward
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Teeling, Sir William


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Errington, Sir Eric
McLaren, Martin
Thorpe, Jeremy


Farr, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Finlay, Graeme
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Foster, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin
Walder, David


Freeth, Denzil
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Sir John
Ward, Dame Irene


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marshall, Douglas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)







Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woollam, John
Mr. Wbitelaw and Mr. Batsford.


Wise, A. R.
Worsley, Marcus

Clause 8.—(POWER TO ABOLISH OR REDUCE SUBSIDIES.)

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move in page 8, line 29 after the first "day", to insert "not".
I assume that the following Amendment, in page 8, to leave out lines 31 to 25, is included in this discussion.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I ought to have said so. That is so, if the House so approves.

Mr. Willis: This Clause is what I call the "welshing" Clause of the Bill, inasmuch as it gives statutory sanction for welshing by the Secretary of State on the solemn obligation that he undertakes with the authorities when he authorises the building of certain house's. We are anxious about this ethical deterioration of the Government and we wish to save them from themselves.
This Clause makes it possible for the Secretary of State, by order, to stop the payment of subsidies, to reduce their amount or to reduce the length of time for which they are payable. It enables the Secretary of State to do this in respect of houses, after the order has been made, up to a period of ten years, after which it permits the Secretary of State to do this in respect of houses no matter when they were approved. That is why I say that it enables the Secretary of State to break the solemn obligations which he makes to local authorities when he approves houses for building and for grant purposes.
The object of the Amendment is to save the Government from themselves. If these two Amendments are accepted, it will mean that the Government cannot after ten years make retrospective any of their actions in regard to the changing of subsidies, the amount of subsidies or the length of time for which they are payable. We believe on this side of the House that this is a desirable thing to do.
The provision relating to the ten-year period is a new provision. I do not think that it appears in any previous legislation. Here, for the first time, the Secretary for State has taken to himself

power to say that in ten years' time he will stop paying subsidies for houses built ten or fifteen years ago. The Secretary of State can say, "I shall reduce the subsidy or pay it only for another year longer." These are enormous powers to give to the right hon. Gentleman. One of the obvious effects of giving them will be to make it almost impossible for any local authority to plan ahead.
Local authorities will be in a position where, if empowered to proceed with house building at certain rates of subsidy, they will not know what will happen at the end of a ten-year period. No longer is a local authority to be able to say that in respect of certain houses it will receive £x a year for sixty years. No longer will a local authority be able to plan ahead on the basis of revenue coming into the housing account in the form of subsidies for so many years, because the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take these new powers. I do not know what is the justification for them.
The Under-Secretary said that circumstances may be such as to justify this course of action.

Mr. Ross: Let the Government of the day decide that.

Mr. Willis: Precisely. Certainly, if a Government are to suddenly break their promise—

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what the Government will be doing.

Mr. Galbraith: No.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman says, "No". But of course they will be breaking their promise to the local authorities.
The Government ought to come to the House and ask for powers to do that in a way which would enable the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman says that we should trust the Secretary of State who would not act in an irresponsible fashion. But different people have different ideas of responsibility. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is acting responsibly in relation to this Bill. We happen to disagree with him. It is not always easy


to decide what is responsible action and certainly this is something which ought to be decided on the Floor of the House and not be a decision taken only by a Minister. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think seriously about these powers and not to advance the same argument again.
Another point is that this sort of thing is decided by the Treasury and not by the Secretary of State. Even though the Secretary of State may not think it a desirable thing to do, he must comply or resign. The present "minnows" on the Government Front Bench would not resign even on such a matter as this. I suggest that these enormous powers should not be granted to the right hon. Gentleman and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should allow this to happen. These powers could be used to weaken the power of local authorities over their own housing policies and programmes. This cannot contribute to the housing problem in Scotland. The local authorities will not have the confidence they ought to have in the future to enable them to plan ahead on any substantial scale.
Before embarking on a large housing programme—which, heaven knows, most local authorities in Scotland ought to do—I should have thought that a local authoritiy would wish to do so in the knowledge that at the end of ten years it would not lose all its subsidies. But under these provisions no local authority could do that, and it is an alarming state of affairs. We have had housing legislation and subsidies for forty years and in the past no Government have asked for these powers.
No Government in the past have asked for powers at the end of ten years suddenly to stop subsidies without coming to this House. Why the experience of forty years should have led to this conclusion I do not know. The hon. Gentleman has never given a satisfactory explanation; he certainly did not in Committee. What in those forty years has led to the Government now seeking to obtain these powers? So far as I know, there has been nothing. The hon. Gentleman has to justify this proposal very much more than he did in Committee before he can satisfy us. I do not think he can do that and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for this Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: The effect of this Amendment, if read with the linked Amendment, would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to reduce or abolish subsidy or to pay subsidy for a reduced number of years, on houses which had already been approved under the Bill. It would do so by providing that the Order could not apply to houses in proposals received before the day on which the draft of the review Order was laid before Parliament. In short, what it seeks to do is to remove the allegedly retrospective power of the Secretary of State in relation to subsidies already in payment. As I said in Committee, I appreciate what is worrying hon. Members opposite, but I am afraid that I must again oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Why?

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Member will wait he will hear why. I hope that I shall satisfy him.
The provision in subsection (2) whereby the Secretary of State may, at any time after ten years from the passing of the Bill, abolish or reduce subsidies already in payment under the Bill, is admittedly a new power.

Mr. Willis: It is entirely new.

Mr. Galbraith: That is perfectly true. The reason for introducing it was explained in the White Paper on Housing in Scotland at paragraph 33. The fact that it is a new power does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with it. I am surprised that the hon. Member, who regards himself as being a member of a progressive party, should think that anything which is new is necessarily wrong.

Mr. Willis: I suggested that these were new powers and very big powers. I said that the hon. Gentleman had to justify them in a much better manner than he had justified them in the past before he can expect us to accept them.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member said that, but he also seemed to think that because this was a new power it was wrong. I am saying that it is not necessarily wrong.
It could indeed be argued that these powers do not go far enough. For the £14 million or so which is being paid out annually in subsidies to local authorities under previous Acts will of course


be exempt, and some £3 million out of that £14 million is payable in respect of the cheap pre-war houses where the case for revision might well be held to be strongest, because the current cost of those houses is mow probably below the potential income from them. The earlier subsidy Acts provide quite categorically, however, that the contributions are to be made at the specified rate for forty or sixty years, so the Government would be exposing themselves to a charge of breaking faith if they invited Parliament to make retrospective changes in regard to those subsidies.
What subsection (2) of Clause 8 does is to give notice that if after a reasonable period the kind of economic change occurs which has already taken place in respect of the cheap pre-war houses, the Government reserve the right to seek Parliament's approval—I stress that because the hon. Member seemed to think that we were not seeking Parliament's approval—by means of an Order submitted for affirmative Resolution, to an appropriate reduction in Exchequer subsidies.

Mr. Willis: We cannot amend that.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member is quite right; the House cannot amend that. The change in circumstances leading to the need for review might, in practice, be so radical as to call for fresh legislation; but the existence on the Statute Book of the power to reduce by Order subsidies already in payment would protect the Government of the day against any possible accusation of bad faith in retrospectively reducing subsidies such as prevents the Government from reducing subsidies on pre-war houses if they wanted to do so. The new power cannot be used until ten years after the Bill becomes law, and it will be used only if the circumstances—for example the rent-paying capacity of the tenants—have changed so drastically that the maintenance of the present subsidy cannot be justified.

Mr. Willis: That is an astonishing argument. The hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary to do this because the Government lack the courage to face the country and to explain their actions to the people. "We should be accused", he said, "of not keeping faith if we reduced subsidies given before the war."

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I said that subsidies under previous Acts were for a fixed period of years. Although the case for changing them may be strong, if we were to change them we should be open to the charge of acting retrospectively. We should be breaking our word. In the Bill we are not breaking our word because we are giving a warning that if the circumstances change we reserve the right to reduce the subsidy.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East suggested that this provision was a breach of contract with the local authorities. That is a complete misrepresentation. In fact, it is a warning placed on the Statute Book now that subsidies under the Bill may be changed. The result is that any future Government who find it necessary to use the power will be protected against an accusation that the reduction represents a breach of statutory commitment. Local authorities will know from the moment that a house is approved that the possibility exists, even if only very remotely, of a reduction in subsidy. When a specific advance warning is given it is nonsense for the hon. Member to speak about a breach of contract.
Again, there is no suggestion of retrospective legislation here, since the new power to reduce subsidies already in payment applies only to houses approved from the day the Bill was published. I sometimes think that hon. Members opposite use the word "retrospective" without realising exactly What it means, since the whole object of putting this provision in the Bill is precisely to avoid any suggestion that a future Government is acting retrospectively.

Mr. Willis: I did not use the word "retrospective".

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member may not have used that word just now, but it was used in Committee, and I thought he gave the impression that that was his view. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) laughs, but he was not in Committee, and I can assure him that the word "retrospective" was used endlessly in Committee.

Mr. Willis: That was a different debate.

Mr. Galbraith: But it happens to be the same point which I am answering.

Mr. T. Fraser: From the same brief.

Mr. Galbraith: I have not the same brief.

Mr. Manuel: Is it not retrospective if it is back-dated to 1st November last year?

Mr. Galbraith: That shows that the hon. Member has not understood one word that I said. It is not retrospective.

Mr. Manuel: I say that it is.

Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Member and I should have a discussion afterwards behind Mr. Speaker's Chair about the precise meaning of the word "retrospective".

Sir M. Galpern: Sir M. Galpern Is not the Minister telling the House that the purpose of the Clause is to give a guarantee of subsidies for ten years only? Is he not saying that after that guarantee anything may happen?

Mr. Galbraith: That is one way of looking at it.
I want to make it clear that there is no question of asking local authorities to pay back money. They will be able to retain all the payments made to them up to the date of the Order. In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I do not see how it can be regarded as retrospective to alter the amount of money which they have not yet received. To preserve flexibility it is necessary to have this power, and I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: One of the points made by the Under-Secretary was that a local authority should know from the moment a house is built that in future its subsidy might be axed. Do the Tory Government want local authorities to build houses, or do they not? It seems to me that the Tory Government do not want local authorities to build houses. The Government have put into the Bill not only this Clause but other Clauses under the pretension that other bodies, such as housing associations, will build houses. In what position does the Under-Secretary think that the Government are placing every Scottish local authority?
Until now, in spite of this provision, which the Under-Secretary continually

tells us has been in other Bills but which he has had to say has never been used, local authorities have known when they have built a house that they would get a subsidy from the Government each year for sixty years. In other words, there was a partnership. They borrowed money from the Public Works Loan Board. They knew the interest rate they would have to pay on the money over sixty years. They knew exactly what subsidy they would get from the Government. It was a real partnership. They were not in any doubt. When they built houses, they knew what responsibility they were undertaking as a local authority.

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith One thing which they did not know was the future capacity of the tenants to pay rent. I ask the hon. Lady to consider that. The tenants' capacity to pay rent may very well change over sixty years. She has left that factor entirely out of her calculations.

Miss Herbison: No. That does not alter my calculations. The Under-Secretary has not told us in what circumstances these subsidies would be axed. It may have nothing to do with incomes. It may be another economic crisis brought on by a Tory Government. Every local authority will be placed in the greatest uncertainty. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) spoke of old houses whose rents he wants to raise. Many of them need to be replaced by local government houses. How shall we get those houses if legislation such as this is put on the Statute Book, especially under the Guillotine?
The case made by the Under-Secretary was derisory. He said that the Government could go much further. That was indeed part of his case. He said that the Government were not going to take back from local authorities money which local authorities had already received. The fact that he has had to advance such a derisory argument shows how weak the Government's case is. I know that many of my hon. Friends would like to speak on this question, because it affects every local authority in Scotland. It affects the chances of many thousands of people


getting houses, but because of this dreadful Guillotine we shall now have to vote on the Amendment.

Sir James Duncan: I was not on the Committee. This point has been raised with me by local authorities in my part of the world. I want to get my mind clear about what is being done in the Bill so that I can decide what attitude to adopt on the Amendment. As I understand it, all existing houses built before November are sacrosanct because they are old contracts. The Government are not going to break their contracts. So far, so good. However, houses approved about the time of the introduction of the Bill are not sacrosanct. The Government are giving ten years' notice that there will be no change in the subsidies in the Bill, whether they be £42 or any other rate. There will be no change in the subsidy rates in the Bill for ten years. [Interruption.]
In this Bill the Government give notice that after ten years there might be changes. What are the safeguards? First of all, there is the ten-year period, certain. Then there must be a material change of circumstances—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said so. Thirdly, there must be an affirmative Resolution—I suppose in both Houses—which gives ample opportunity for discussion, or for the throwing out of that affirmative Resolution by this House. I know that such a Resolution cannot be amended, but it can be thrown out—and it is an affirmative, not a negative, procedure that is being adopted.
I would only add that if the Government's only purpose in connection with this matter was to reduce the period of the subsidy, to do so by means of an Order is much simpler than having to go through all the paraphernalia of a Parliamentary Bill, and there is a good deal of justification for the Government adopting that procedure, particularly as it is a positive procedure. Another safeguard is that there should be consultation with the local authority. That is written into the Bill, which is unusual.
With all those safeguards, it seems to me that local authorities can have every confidence in going on building houses

for the needs of Scotland as they have done in the past, and I hope that they will intensify their efforts. I do not agree with the hon. Lady when she says that local authorities do not have that confidence. I believe that there is every reason for them to be confident, and I hope that they will continue to act as they have done in the past.

Mr. Hendry: I want to make only two points. First, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the contract between the Government and the local authority in regard to a period of 60 years. She suggested that local authorities borrowed money for that period. Surely, she knows that local authorities very rarely borrow for longer than five years, which means that they are willing to take a risk in the hope that interest rates will come down. The Government's guarantee is for ten years, not for five years.
Secondly, we have heard a great deal, not only tonight but in Committee, about the "wicked Tories" proposing this procedure for altering subsidies. I have said it before, and I think that it is time for me to say it again in this House, that the "wicked" procedure was invented in 1924. It is contained in Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provision Act) of that year, a Measure brought in by a Socialist Government—

Mr. Willis: In the interest of truthfulness, the hon. Gentleman knows that the ten-year limit is new.

Mr. Hendry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
That Measure provided that the Government might, after consultation, by order alter the subsidy in respect of any house that had not then been completed. That was a house that had already been approved. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that it takes anything from a year to 18 months to complete a house. There, there was a case of a house started by a local authority and not yet completed but, before that house could be completed, the Socialist Government of 1924 took powers to change the subsidy.

Question put, That "not" be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 200.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Albu, Austen
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Biyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goranwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rosa, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Short, Edward


Callaghan, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cliffs, Michael
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Dempsey, James
MCCann, John
Taverne, Dick


Diamond, John
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert
Manuel, Archie
Timmons, John


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John
Mr. Redhead and




Mr. Charles A. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Aitken, W. T.
Chataway, Christopher
Emery, Peter


Allason, James
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Arbuthnot, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Farr, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cleaver, Leonard
Finlay, Graeme


Barlow, Sir John
Collard, Richard
Fisher, Nigel


Barter, John
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Batsford, Brian
Corfteld, F. V.
Foster, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Berkeley, Humphry
Coulson, Michael
Freeth, Denzil


Biffen, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gammans, Lady


Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Black, Sir Cyril
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bossom, Clive
Curran, Charles
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bourne-Arton, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Box, Donald
Dance, James
Coodhart, Philip


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Boyle, Sir Edward
Deedes, W. F.
Gower, Raymond


Brewis, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Green, Alan


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Doughty, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.


Buck, Antony
Drayson, G. B.
Gurden, Harold


Billiard, Denys
du Cann, Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Duncan, Sir James
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)




Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Russell, Ronald


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Ross A Cromarty)
St. Clair, M.


Hastings, Stephen
McMaster, Stanley R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hay, John
Macpnerson, Niall (Dumfries)
Seymour, Leslie


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin
Shaw, M.


Hendry, Forees
Maginnis, Simon
Shepherd, William


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Hill. J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marshall, Douglas
Smithers, Peter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hobson, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speir, Rupert


Holland, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stodart, J. A.


Hollingworth, John
Mills, Stratton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Holt, Arthur
Miscampbell, N.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hopkins, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Talbot, John E.


Hornby, R. P.
Morrison, John
Tapsell, Peter


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Teeling, Sir William


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Nabarro, Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Noble, Michael
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hutchison. Michael Clark
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


dames, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peel, John
Walder, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Leavey, J. A.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leburn, Gilmour
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Ramsden, James
Wise, A. R.


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rawllnson, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Litchfield, Capt. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woollam, John


Longbottom, Charles
Rees, Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Loveya, Walter H.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Whiteiaw and


McLaren, Martin
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Mr. Michael Hamilton.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, to leave out "if he thinks fit".
May we take with this, Mr. Speaker, the following Amendment, in line 44, at end insert:
with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Galbraith: The effect of the two Amendments is to make it obligatory for the Secretary of State, before laying before Parliament the draft of a subsidy review order under Clause 8, to consult with any particular local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable—in place of the present requirement to consult "if he thinks fit" with any particular local authority.
These Amendments are the result of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to see whether we could find a form of words to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The hon. Member had argued that the Clause contained a new power. He said:
That new power is the power to specify houses within one particular area. If the

Secretary of State is to lay such an Order he already has that particular area in mind, and I think that he ought to be under an obligation to consult the local authority concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th March, 1962; c. 805.]
I explained that, while we had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, the Amendment tabled by him to meet it would not be workable in practice because, before deciding to make a review order, the Secretary of State would want to consider whether a particular local authority should be treated in a way different from the rest. He could not, however, make up his mind on this until he had consulted the local authority or local authorities concerned, and he therefore might not think it right to include a particular authority in the draft order before he had consulted it.
Therefore, the form of the Amendment which hon. Members opposite suggested—which involved an obligation to consult any authority affected by the order—would not bite in the case where the authority was not included in the draft order, or where the Secretary of State had not made up his mind whether it should


be so included. In other words, as I said:
There must be consultation before we can decide whether a particular local authority should be affected by a review order—not the other way round."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th March, 1962; c. 804.]
However, as I promised at that time, we have had another look at the point to see whether we could help the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I have tabled these Amendments with the object of making it clear that, when there is a chance that a local authority may be affected by a review order in a way different from other local authorities, the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to consult that local authority before laying a draft of the order before Parliament. In this way, he will have an opportunity to hear what the local authority has to say before making up his mind to include it in the draft order.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and to his hon. Friends for highlighting this point, and I hope that they will agree that the Amendment represents an improvement on the wording in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: It would be churlish of me if I did not thank the Under-Secretary of State for what he has said and for having listened, on this occasion, to what we said. I only wish that he had listened on many other occasions in Committee to what we had to say. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that when I moved the Amendment I said that I appreciated that it did not exactly meet the point and that it would place a considerable burden of consultation on the Secretary of State. In view of What the hon. Gentleman has said, however, I think that we on this side should express our thanks to him and be prepared to support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 44, at end insert:
with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Clause 11.—(ADVANCES TO REGISTERED HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS PROVIDING HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR LETTING.)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, after "submit" to insert:
after consultation with the local authority in whose area they intend to build".
In this Amendment, we are trying to be helpful to the new housing associations. We axe not asking the Under-Secretary to give the local authority the right to veto any scheme submitted by a housing association. What we are insisting upon is that a scheme of this nature which has been vetoed by the Secretary of State should proceed on the basis of co-operation.
Local authorities which have the responsibility of building houses will be glad to see some of these new housing associations helping them to solve the problem of bad housing in Scotland. One of the reasons why we suggest that these housing associations should consult the local authority about such projects is that, on the question of the sites that will be available, the local authority will surely be in the best position to advise any new housing association where the best sites are, and, by co-operation with that association, help it to get on with the job of building the houses which it intends to build.
Then, there is the question of the cost of the servicing of the sites. Here, again, the local authority can be of immense help to any new housing association by pin-pointing exactly Where the services are, and, in all probability, helping the association to save money. There is also the question of planning, because the association must have planning permission before it can go on with the job. The large burghs and the county councils are the planning authorities, and if the new housing associations were to cooperate and consult with them, the advice which they could get would be invaluable. In regard to the small burghs, which are not the planning authorities, no doubt they could be of immense assistance by suggesting to the planning authority that assistance should be given, and, if possible, planning permission also given to the new association. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary has no intention of by-passing the planning authorities and giving us another dose of the bad planning which we have had in Scotland for some considerable time.
We have a precedent for this Amendment. The Scottish Special Housing Association has been working in close co-operation with the local authorities in Scotland for years, and the local authorities are very glad to have its help. In fact, some of the local authorities have even applied for an extra allocation of Housing Association houses to assist them in trying to remove bad housing conditions. I cannot see any reason at all why any of the new housing associations should not co-operate and follow the example of the Scottish Special Housing Association. I am quite sure that the local authorities will be only too glad to help the new associations, no matter where they are going to build the houses that are so badly needed. In the end, of course, co-operation is necessary in any case, so why not let us start at the beginning and cooperate from the start? It would be more sensible and reasonable. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who has given the Opposition nothing so far tonight, will be able to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) that I shall not be able to say "yes".
The effect of the Amendment would be to place upon a housing association proposing to build houses for economic letting—that is the point which I wish to stress—with the aid of an Exchequer advance under Clause 11 a statutory obligation to consult the local authority in whose area it intends to build.
In Committee, an Amendment was tabled which would have had the effect of requiring a housing association operating under Clause 11 to submit its schemes to the local authority first instead of directly to the Secretary of State; it would have made further progress dependent upon whether the local authority recommended the scheme to the Secretary of State. The Amendment was discussed at the eighteenth and nineteenth sittings of the Committee and was withdrawn on the understanding that the Government would give some further thought to the matter before Report.
The present Amendment does not go quite as far as that in Committee, because whereas that in Committee would

have given the local authority a power of veto on any scheme under Clause 11 which it chose not to recommend to the Secretary of State, the present Amendment would require merely consultation and would not give a power of veto. To that extent the hon. Member might presumably expect that the Amendment would be more acceptable to the Government.
It is perfectly true that in Committee I said that I would again look at this matter of consultation between the housing association and the local authority. But I also indicated, I think in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), that I thought it most unlikely that I would be able to find some suitable provision, because I was reluctant to have any extra stage imposed by Statute.
I have examined this matter very carefully in the light of the Committee discussions, but I regret that I have to tell the hon. Member and other hon. Members that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment or to table a Government Amendment to the same or somewhat similar effect. The main reason for that decision is simple. As I explained, a housing association operating with the aid of an Exchequer advance under Clause 11 will normally—except where it is building for old people, of course—be building without subsidy and the houses will either be let at economic rents or occupied on some form of joint ownership basis, again at the full economic cost. In other words, housing associations operating under Clause 11 will be catering for a housing need different from that for which a local authority normally caters. The people who occupy the houses will be those who are earning enough to pay the full economic cost of a modern house and not needing any subsidy from the rates or from the Exchequer. In the normal case, those will be people for whom local authorities do not cater. Local authorities rightly regard their primary duty as being towards those people who are not able to provide satisfactory housing for themselves.
There is, therefore, no question of conflict between the local authority and the housing association building under Clause 11. There is no question of overlap. It therefore seems wrong in


principle that when a housing association is operating in this way and is in a position no different from that of any other private builder who has decided to build unsubsidised houses, there should be any statutory obligation on the housing association to consult the local authority as housing authority. Certainly private builders must obtain planning permission—that is obvious—and must co-operate with the local authority in the layout of streets, sewerage and such other matters—that is only common sense. But they have no duty to consult the housing authority as such because there is no reason for them to do so. Precisely the same consideration applies when a housing association proposes to build under Clause 11, because it is building houses for economic letting. If it is right for an ordinary individual building for economic letting not to have to consult the housing authority, that should also apply to housing associations building under Clause 11.
For those reasons, therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: We are surprised that the Under-Secretary of State has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, particularly in view of the helpful way in which it was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill). My hon. Friend showed clearly that, far from resenting houses being built by housing associations which are not out to make profit, we welcome this move forward.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want anything to come between the decision of a housing association to build in a certain area and its representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland for part of the £3 million that are to be allocated. We are as keen as the right hon. Gentleman that as little time as possible should be wasted in the provision of houses.
What about local authorities who are now building houses to let at economic rents? The hon. Gentleman suggested that there would be no overlapping and no competition. How wrong he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made it clear during our discussions in Committee that Kilmarnock Council was building this

type of house for owner-occupation. Further, the hon. Gentleman should note that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) only this week tenants have moved into houses built by the local authority and are paying economic rents. I imagine that this is the kind of thing that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to encourage, because he will not get many houses built out of this £3 million that he proposes to allocate, and if local authorities are willing to do this kind of work there will be competition and overlapping.
We want local authorities, housing associations and the S.S.H.A. to build houses in Scotland, and it seems to me that if the Amendment were accepted the first thing that a housing association would do would be to go to the local authority and have discussions with it on the many points mentioned by my hon. Friend. It would have discussion about planning, about siting, and it would, I hope, discuss what the local authority had in mind with regard to the building of houses.
It seems to me that, from the point of view of the associations, there is everything to be said for accepting the Amendment. I again plead with the hon. Gentleman to accept it and not regard with suspicion everything that is put forward, no matter how well, from this side of the House.

Mr. Willis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this matter again. We all wish to get the best results in the local authority areas. Obviously many advantages are to be gained from consultation. Certainly no harm can be done by it. Only good can ensue from consultation.
Why should the hon. Gentleman be so doctrinaire about this and simply turn down the Amendment? I would have thought that anything which contributed to the building of houses was a good thing. I would also have thought that it would be a good thing if it were done with the knowledge and co-operation of the local authority.

It being half-past Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL LOANS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Colonial Loans Acts, 1949 and 1952, it is expedient to authorise the charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and the payment into the Exchequer, of any additional sums required to be so charged and issued or paid under the said Act of 1949 by reason of any provision of the said Act of this Session—

(a) increasing the aggregate amount of the principal of the loans which may be guaranteed by the Treasury under the said Act of 1949 from the equivalent of one hundred million pounds to the equivalent of one hundred and fifty million pounds;
(b) enabling the Treasury to guarantee under the said Act of 1949 any loan made to an authority established for the purpose of providing or administering services which are common to, or relate to matters of common interest to, two or more territories of which at least one is a colonial territory; or
(c) extending the meaning of the expression "colonial territory" in the said Acts of 1949 and 1952.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the implications of the Government's recent decision to order the Avro 748 aircraft in place of the Handley Page Dart Herald. This is a matter of some concern and consideration in my constituency where we have a factory, at Radlett, at which are employed a large number of my constituents. As the end of the orders for the famous Victor bomber draws to a close, those constituents of mine naturally have their eyes on the future and have put a great deal of faith in this Dart Herald aircraft to help to ensure their future.
It is not normally necessary to declare that one has no financial interest in any matter one raises, but since it has come to my ears, in recent weeks during which

I have been asking Questions about this subject, that certain people have suggested that I have a financial interest in Handley Page I think it would be a good thing to take this opportunity to make it quite clear that I have never had and have not at this time. I have a purely constituency interest, which I was prepared to explore, and indeed I was prepared to sacrifice it, if I felt that the national interest, which must come first, made this necessary, but in fact I have found that this is not so.
Perhaps we could just have a look at the history of this whole question of the Dart Herald, which was originally developed as a possible replacement of the DC 111 aircraft and was first built in 1955 with Leonides piston engines. It was in 1958 that the first flight was made with the present Rolls-Royce Dart propeller turbo engines. I would emphasise that no Government assistance or support was involved in the development of this aircraft. Therefore, this is an example of private enterprise, and one which, I should have thought, this Government in particular would have been glad to support.
I appreciate fully that the Government decided upon the policy some two years or more ago of rationalisation in the aircraft industry, and it was said at that time that, once the aircraft companies had merged into the large consortia, Government orders would be concentrated upon those five major groups.
It just so happens that Messrs. Handley Page have not amalgamated with any other large concern. I do not think it a matter for this House whether their reasons, even if they were available to us, were right or wrong. It would satisfy me if I merely knew that the chairman of the company felt that he had not had an offer satisfactory to his shareholders. I should think that he was carrying out his duty in such circumstances to refuse to amalgamate.
However, in spite of this policy of rationalisation and of emphasis upon the placing of orders with those large concerns newly formed, the Government did in fact in May, 1961, invite Messrs. Handley Page to submit a fixed-price tender for a military version of the Herald aircraft. This was a rear-loading transport aircraft for military purposes. Then the question which I ask myself


at this stage is why this invitation to tender was made if it was felt that this policy of placing orders with the large consortia was to be strictly adhered to.
Messrs. Handley Page had great confidence in the Herald aircraft, and at that time the only competitor available was the Caribou, an old piston-engined aircraft made by a Canadian associate company of de Havilland. The Herald was an aircraft which could be produced at low cost, because the development was complete. Early delivery could have been offered—and, indeed, was offered—in 1961. Its performance was greatly superior to that of the Caribou, and its load and range capacity were also much superior. Indeed, Handley Page assumed at the time that the invitation to tender indicated the possibility of some orders being received, and I understand that a further £50,000 was expended on developing a military version of the Herald on this assumption.
In July, 1961, the aircraft was demonstrated at the expense of the company and at the invitation of the Air Ministry—a demonstration on unprepared surfaces at Martlesham Heath Aerodrome. The Army, the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Aviation were there, and I understand that they were all completely satisfied with the performance put up by the aircraft. It seems to me that this was the stage at which orders could have been placed, because we then merely had a contrast between the Handley Page Dart Herald and the older piston-engined Caribou.
I understand that the Army tended to look upon the Caribou as something they might like, but they are ardent traditionalists at heart, and because it was an old-fashioned, piston-engined aircraft the Army's heart may have been warmed to it. But the Royal Air Force had no doubt. It was at this moment that I became anxious lest the Royal Air Force should be robbed of the best aircraft for the job because of the policy of the Government in giving orders only to the big, major groups. I therefore wrote to the Minister expressing the hope that the only consideration would be that the Royal Air Force should have the aircraft which it wanted. This was the point at which it seemed to me that national interest came well in front of

my constituency interest, although the two really coincided. I have the old-fashioned view that the Minister of Aviation's job is to provide the Royal Air Force with the aircraft it needs. Therefore, I expressed that view.
Last month, after a further delay of about eight months, we found that an order had been placed for the Avro 748, in spite of the fact the Royal Air Force was more in favour of the Dart Herald. On 5th March I asked the Minister of Aviation a Question on the matter, and he replied that in practice there was no decisive difference between the two aircraft. I asked, in an intervention in a recent debate, who made this evaluation as to there being no decisive difference—whether it was made by the men in the Royal Air Force who have to fly these machines or by the officials in the Ministry of Aviation. It is no discredit to those officials to say that, in my view, the Royal Air Force are the people who should take such a decision, where there is a narrow balance.
I was disturbed to learn, when it was disclosed in a recent debate on the aircraft industry, that no high-ranking Royal Air Force Officer in the Ministry of Aviation is responsible for this sort of decision. We therefore have a situation in which the Herald is cheaper than the Avro 748—by all accounts; perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to let us have the actual figures—it is a high-wing aircraft, and therefore to be regarded as preferable to a low-wing aircraft for use on rough surfaces such as on desert land, when rocks and stones might fly up and damage the flaps; it takes a larger payload than the Avro; its cabin is higher and wider, and therefore able to contain much bulkier loads—indeed, it is wide enough to take two sticks of paratroops disembarking at the same time—and its performance during trials has been without exception, whereas I understand that the Avro 748 was bogged down twice when it subsequently came to trials.
The Herald is available much more readily than the Avro, because it is already in service on certain airlines, and twenty-one of these aircraft have been sold for civilian purposes already, including three to B.E.A. I need not mention that His Royal Highness the


Duke of Edinburgh has been flying such an aircraft on his mission to South America, and we all hope that this will help greatly to encourage the sales of the civilian version.
We find that the Dart Herald takes the R.D.A.10 engine which is now in production. I understand that the Avro 748 needs a more powerful engine because of the weight of the aircraft and requires the R.D.A.12, which is not at present in use and will have to be specially developed. I do not know the cost Of development but an estimate has been made of £1 million. That would vitally affect the whole cost of the order. I should like to know how long it will take to develop this engine. The period I have been given is eighteen months to two years which, on top of the present delay of eight months, seems to me to be an unreasonable period.
A newly-developed engine would naturally have to be overhauled and inspected at much more frequent intervals than a tried and trusted engine. Presumably the R.D.A.12 would have to be inspected after 250 or 400 flying hours, whereas the R.D.A.10 would probably run for 1,500 or 2,000 hours before an inspection was necessary. Does not this mean that there would have to be an extra supply of engines to replace those which were being inspected, and that the capital cost and the cost of maintenance will be much greater if this special engine is to be used?
Added to this we have the restricted propeller clearance of a low-winged aeroplane and I understand that it was found necessary to increase the height of the undercarriage for clearance. When that was done it was found that the cabin was too high for loading and the undercarriage had to be made adjustable so that it would go up and down. This seems to me an unnecessary complication which can only be expensive in maintenance and manufacture.
There are a good many advantages which one could point to which the Herald has over the Avro 748. It is preferred by the R.A.F. It has a larger pay load. It is cheaper to buy and to run. It would be available two years sooner than the Avro 748. It seems to me that the Ministry of Aviation should have made an exception to its policy in

this case. It would have been a logical exception. After all, the policy was designed to produce cheaper aircraft and in fact this is a cheaper aircraft, even though it does not result from the policy. It is reasonable because it would give the R.A.F. what it wants, which is what the Minister of Aviation ought to supply, and it would be equitable because Avro, one of the biggest of the consortia, had a chance to produce the aircraft and has not matched up to the aircraft which was produced by private enterprise.
I think that this shows that a certain shabbiness of treatment has been measured out to Handley Page Aircraft Company, the first in this country to be incorporated for the manufacture of aircraft. The company was a pioneer in commercial passenger flying and in the production of large bombers. I can look back during my lifetime and remember when the Hannibal aircraft was flying, and the Halifax bomber in the last war, and now the Victor bombers today fly over my home and my constituency.
I feel that this decision is purely political. It is a doctrinaire adherance to a policy decision taken two or three years ago and as such I deplore it. It is made even worse by the fact that the Minister seems to have failed to follow up certain offers made by Handley Page. I understand that the firm was appreciative of the difficulty confronting the Government by having entered into this policy of giving orders to the major groups and, therefore, it suggested that it might be possible for one of the major groups to manufacture the Herald. I believe that this offer has not been taken up. I ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again, bearing in mind the need to obtain for the R.A.F. the aircraft it really wants and as soon as possible, rather than to incur unreasonable delay. Also, as a matter of future policy, he should consider whether we are ever to get the aircraft the Services need so long as the Ministry has the choice and there are no consultations with high-ranking Air Force or other Service officers with more knowledge of what is required.
I close by thanking the House for this opportunity to debate the matter, and I express the hope, not only in the interests of my constituents who have


great faith in this aircraft, but also in the interests of the Royal Air Force, that this question will be looked into once again.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: We on this side of the House are very concerned about the situation which has arisen in regard to the Avro 748 and the Handley Page Dart Herald, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for bringing the question before the House.
So far as I know, both are excellent aircraft. Although the hon. Member has made a good case for the Handley Page Dart Herald, I have no doubt that there is much to be said from the opposite point of view. It may well be that there is not much difference between them, but it is important to bear in mind that it is widely said that the Handley Page Dart Herald has been stood down as far as this order is concerned purely for the political reason that it is not produced by one of the consortia, and it is also widely said that this aircraft is more satisfactory than the Avro 748. If that is the case, obviously it will cause considerable impairment of the morale of the aircraft industry, so I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a detailed explanation of the situation.
I understand that this deal has not yet been closed. If that is the case, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will undertake that there will be a detailed explanation of the relative merits of these aircraft when the deal is finally closed and that in the meantime he will give us what information he can.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I wish—in one sentence only, for obvious reasons—to add to the plea so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), from the point of view of one who represents in this House a constituency containing the Woodley factory of the company. A very large number of persons there who add very greatly by their skill and knowledge to the value of the aircraft industry in that part of the country are anxiously watching this position and, like myself, they want to

hear far more fully than they have heard so far by way of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.

10.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for giving me this opportunity to set out the facts on a matter which I am very well aware has caused wide public interest, which has been expressed both in this House and in the Press.
The military requirement with which we are concerned is for a new light cargo aircraft for two purposes, firstly to provide support in war for forces operating in the field and, secondly, to serve in peace as a replacement of the Valetta for general use. This requirement, as my hon. Friend said, was formally put in May, 1961, to the Ministry of Aviation by the Air Ministry and by us to a number of manufacturers. Several air-oraft both British and foreign were considered for the requirement and after a technical evaluation the choice was narrowed down to three aircraft, two British, the Avro 748 military freighter—a modified version of the Avro 748—the Handley Page Dart Herald and a Canadian aircraft, the Caribou, manufactured by a subsidiary of the Hawker-Siddeley Group. I shall not waste time over the Caribou, which is already in service in the United States and Canada and was therefore ready for earlier delivery than the others and did in fact meet the war-time requirement, but was judged to be inferior in a number of respects for the peace-time role.
It is not the custom, for good reasons I think, to canvass publicly the individual characteristics of aircraft in such circumstances, because the Government's requirements are to a very tight specification and one would not wish to prejudice any aircraft in any of its other markets by appearing to suggest that simply because it did not meet the extremely tight Government specification it therefore was not up to the mark generally.
I can give the House certain information about both the Avro and the Herald, which incidentally are both private ventures, without support from Government money in the previous stages. There is no distinction here between the


Herald and the Avro 748. Both were given a thorough trial in their civil version and the flight trials of both were conducted at the same place in similar conditions. On both occasions experts were present at the trials from the Royal Air Force, the Army, and the Ministry of Aviation. The Ministry of Aviation experts include a substantial number of senior Royal Air Force officers, so in a sense the Royal Air Force was represented twice over in these exercises. It was, as has been said by my right hon. Friend, concluded that there was no decisive difference in the estimated performance or the operational characteristics of the two aircraft. The decision that there was "no decisive difference" was made, not by chairborne officials, but by the technical specialists of the Ministry of Aviation, in close consultation with the operational staff of the Air Ministry, and the conclusion was endorsed by the Minister of Defence himself who, as I am sure the House will agree, can speak for the technical experts in the Air Ministry.
I come now to particular characteristics. I will take payload first, which affects the number of aircraft to be ordered. There is no significant difference in the cabin dimensions. In the weight that can be carried, the Herald has a slight advantage which would be greater in some very exceptional circumstances than in others. But after careful study with the Air Ministry it became quite clear that, whichever of these two aircraft were ordered, the same number would be required. There may have been some confusion because in the case of the Caribou a larger number would be required, but in the case of the Herald and the Avro that is not the case.
With regard to delivery dates, it is probably true that the Herald could be released for service a few months earlier than the Avro 748, but the estimated delivery dates for the entire order would be very much the same and in both cases it would depend on the same limiting factor. The limiting factor concerns the engine, on which I should like to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend asked about the additional development cost for the Dart 12 engine. This is still being assessed, but, as far as we can foresee at the moment, it is likely to work out, spread over the

whole order, at about £5,000 per engine. The time scale is that it would need about eighteen months for development from the date of contract, but the important point which I wish to emphasise is that the recommendation of the Ministry of Aviation experts was that, whichever of the two aircraft were chosen—the Avro 748 or the Herald—the Dart 12 engine would have to be installed if either aircraft were to meet the specification. With the Dart 10, the Air Ministry specification would not be fully met.
The subsequent cost of stocking and maintaining engines would be substantially the same, whether it was the Dart 10 or the Dart 12, because from the Royal Air Force's point of view both are new engines, but I emphasise again that for either aircraft the Dart 12 would have to be installed.
1 turn now to price. My right hon. Friend explained on 5th March in answer to a Question that the price for the Avro remains to be fixed by contract, and that is conditional upon reaching satisfactory terms. It is not the normal practice to give details of the quotations, and I shall not do so. However, I should like to answer a question put to me during the debate on aviation the week before last. I was asked whether the price quoted by Handley Page was a fixed price for the Herald. The answer is that we asked both firms to submit quotations which we intended to use as a basis for a fixed-price contract, but it was only at the contract stage that it could be called a fixed price in the ordinary sense of the words.
It is not a simple matter to arrive at that fixed price, because early quotations, even if called fixed-price quotations, are not related to detailed specifications which could have contractual force, and they must be treated with reserve until detailed technical specifications for the aircraft and the associated engines and equipment have been finally determined. Moreover, the price paid would be subject to negotiation after detailed investigation by my Ministry's technical cost experts, and that has not yet taken place. Finally, the manufacturers usually include in their quotations reservations and conditions which may affect the price, and both manufacturers did so in this case. It is, therefore, impossible to regard the quoted


price as a fixed price until contract negotiations are concluded on the basis of a detailed specification.
On the basis of initial estimates, the conclusion, taking into account all the relevant factors, was that the difference in total cost to the Government between equipping the Royal Air Force with Avros rather than Heralds, and the cost of operating and maintaining them after purchase, would be unlikely to be very great, and it might weigh in favour of either aircraft—

Mr. Cronin: I apologise for trespassing on the Minister's very brief time, but he has dilated at some length on the similarities of the two aircraft. What I think both sides of the House are particularly anxious to know is largely why the Government have come down firmly in favour of the Avro.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful for that intervention, because it enables me to pass over one or two points that I would otherwise have had to cover in detail.
Against that background of a lack of any substantial, any decisive, difference between the two aircraft, we had, of course, to take into account the Government's declaration of policy, made two years ago, in which the key phrase in this context is that
Except where specialised requirements or public policy make it necessary to do otherwise, we intend to concentrate Government orders on the five major groups."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 958.]
If, in this particular case, we had decided otherwise, the onus would have been on us to prove that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from that policy. There were no exceptional circumstances.

My hon. Friend asks why, in that case, Handley Page was invited at all if it were a foregone conclusion. The answer is that it was not a foregone conclusion. There might have proved to be exceptional circumstances, and to refuse to let Handley Page tender in those circumstances would have prejudged that possibility and would, in fact, have been in contradiction of the policy declared in February, 1960.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate, as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has very rightly said, that these are both very fine aircraft, and I should like to pay a personal tribute to the technical and engineering skill that has been put into the Herald as well as the Avro 748. That is not merely a personal tribute, because some useful orders have already been placed for the Herald and, as I have said, the Government have themselves purchased three for B.E.A., and in one of them the Duke of Edinburgh is now touring Latin America.
Those aircraft were bought to encourage sales in a market for what might loosely be called a Dakota replacement that we feel to be potentially very large. We hope that both aircraft will be successful in that market, and that both will make a contribution to our exports. Although we can understand the disappointment of some hon. Members, with the best will in the world we could not choose more than one aircraft for one Service requirement, and we believe that our choice was the right one.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.